MM  ^ ftcfcujf  $ 

aHvL  >J\±.  ■ «* 

UK® 

rr$F7 * m^SSkr  v vjtfflF 

Jy  > - ^ *WJ-  .§*?. 

(£*  *$& 

lEhiL  j£ 

THE  UNIVERSITY 


OF  ILLINOIS 

LIBRARY 

(530.1 

ZnZb 


NON  CIRCULATING 


CHECK  FOR  UNBOUND 
CIRCULATING  CORY 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/recordsfrompurdu2112phil 


PURDUE  UNIVERSITY  AGRI CULTURAL  EXPER- 
IMENT STATION 


BULLETINS 

211-227 


»# 


1918-19 


LAYETTE  , INDIANA 


COl'TT'^TTS 


211 

212 

213 

214 

215 

216 


221 


w \y  j\ 


\\ 


UNIVERSITY  • 

agriculture  u:  - > ’ 

. 


Records  from  a Purdue  farm  flock  by  A.  0.  Philips 
Plums  and  cherries  by  J . Oskanp 

T&e  value  of  lime  on  Indiana  soils  by  A.  T.  Wiancko 
end  others 


Cost  of  raising  white  Plymouth  Hocks  by  A.  G.  Philips 

Commercial  fertilizers  by  E,  G.  Proulx  and  others 

Commercial  feeds  registered  for  sale  in  Indiana, 

May  1,1918  hy  E.  G.  Proulx  and  others 

Commercial  feeding  stuffs  by  E.  G.  Proulx  and  others 

The  value  of  skim-milk  and  meat  scraps  for  white  Ply- 
mouth Hocks  by  A.  G.  Philips 

Feeding  trials  with  corn  by-products,  palmo  midds,  ?nd 
conmsrcial  mixed  hog  feeds,  191?-1918  by  J . H.  Skin- 
ner and  C.  5.  Starr 


Winter  steer  feeding 

I Comparison  of  rations  with  different  amounts  of  corn 
and  no  corn  for  fattening  two  year  old  steers 

II  Corn  silage  vs.  corn  and  soybean  silage  for  fattening 
two  year  old  steers 

III  Value  of  cottonseed  meal  in  rations  containing  corn 
silage  or  corn  and  soybean  silage  for  fattening  two 
year  old  steers  by  J.  H.  Skinner  and  C.  G.  Starr 

Fattening  western  lambs 

I Qorn  silage  alone  vs.  corn  silage  and  varying  a- 
mounts  of  dry  roughage 

II  Comparison  of  Protein  supplements 

III  Hominy  feed  vs.  shelled  corn 

IV  Partial  vs.  continuous  grain  feeding 

V Influence  of  shearing  by  J.  H.  Skinner  and  C.  G. Starr 


*-153504 


C01TTFITTS-- continued 


222  The  value  of  manure  on  Indiana  soils  by  A.  T. 

Wiancko  and  S.  C.  Jones 

223  So-called  medicinal  hog  cholera  remedies  and 
cures  by  C,  H.  Clinic  and  D.  B.  Clark 

224  Selection  of  disease-free  seed  corn  "by  G.  IT 

Hoffer  and  J.  R.  Holbert 

225  Spring  small  grains  in  Indiana  by  A.  T.  Wian- 

cko and  C.  0,  Cromer 

226  The  value  of  legumes  on  Indiana  soils  by  A.  T. 

Wiancko  and  others 

227  Feeding  experiments  with  leghorns  by  A.  G.  Philips 


• . 

V i M t I 1 

l • M fill  I nW 


COV-’-v' 

\jNl  ^ 


or 

UR8ANA 

PURDUE  UNIVERSITY 


Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


Bulletin  No.  21  i 
March,  1918 


Fig.  1.  House  for  the  farm  flock 

RECORDS  FROM  A PURDUE  FARM  FLOCK 


Published  by  the  Station : 
LAFAYETTE,  INDIANA 
U.  S.  A. 


PURDUE  UNIVERSITY  AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 


BOARD  OP  CONTROL 
Joseph  D.  Oliver.  President.  South  Bend 


Fay  S.  Chandler Indianapolis 

Charles  Downing  Greenfield 

John  A.  Hillenbrand Batesville 

Cyrus  M.  Hobbs Bridgeport 


Winthrop  E.  Stone,  A.  M.,  Ph.  D. 


Warren  T.  McCray Kentland 

James  W.  Noel Indianapolis 

George  W.  Purcell Vincennes 

Andrew  E.  Reynolds Crawfordsyille 


President  of  the  University 


ADVISORY  COMMITTEE 
(Under  Legislative  Act  of  1909) 

John  G.  Brown,  Monon D.  B.  Johnson,  Mooresville..^ 

State  Live  Stock  Association  State  Dairy  Association 

U.  R.  Fishel,  Hope D.  F.  Maish,  Frankfort 

State  Poultry  Fanciers'  Association  State  Corn  Growers'  Association 

H.  H.  Swaim,  South  Bend.... Indiana  Horticultural  Society 


ADMINISTRATION 

Charles  G.  Woodbury,  M.  S.,  Director 

Harry  J.  Reed Assistant  to  the  Director 

Nellie  Tracy Administrative  Assistant 

Mary  K.  Bloom Bookkeeper 

AGRICULTURAL  EXTENSION 
George  I.  Christie,  B.  S.  A.,  Superintendent 

Thomas  A.  Coleman Ass’t  State  Leader 

Field  Studies  and  Demonstrations 

George  M.  Frier,  B.  S.  A Associate  in  " 

Charge  of  Short  Courses  and  Exhibits 
Mabel  L.  Harlan. .Ass’t  in  Agricultural  Extension 

ANIMAL  HUSBANDRY 
John  H.  Skinner,  B.  S.,  Chief 

Chester  G.  Starr,  B.  S.  A 

Acting  Associate  in  Animal  Husbandry 

Herbert  E.  McCartney,  B.  S.  A 

Ass’t  in  Animal  Husbandry  Extension 

BOTANY 

Herbert  S.  Jackson,  A.  B.,  Chief 

George  N.  Hoffer,  M.  S Associate  in  Botany 

George  A.  Osner,  Ph.  D Associate  in  Botany 

Luna  E.  Allison,  B.  S Assistant  in  Botany 

Edwin  B.  Mains,  Ph.  D Assistant  in  Botany 

Harry  R.  Rosen,  M.  5.,  Assistant  in  Rust  Work 

Grace  O.  Wineland,  A.  B.,  M.  S 

Assistant  in  Botany 

DAIRY  HUSBANDRY 
Ralph  E.  Caldwell,  B.  S.,  Acting  Chief 

Howard  W.  Gregory,  B.  S 

Associate  in  Dairy  Manufactures 

George  Spitzer,  Ph.  G..  B.  S 

Associate  in  Dairy  Chemistry 

Harry  M.  Weeter,  M.  S 

Associate  in  Dairy  Bacteriology 

Turner  H.  Broughton,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Creamery  Inspection 

William  F.  Epple,  Ph.  G 

Assistant  in  Dairy  Chemistry 

ENTOMOLOGY 
James  Troop,  M.  S.,  Chief 
Preston  W.  Mason,  B.  S.,  Ass’t  in  Entomology 

HORTICULTURE 
Laurenz  Greene,  M.  S.  A.,  Chief 

Harry  A.  Noyes,  M.  S Associate  in 

Horticultural  Chemistry  and  Bacteriology 
Joseph  Oskamp,  B.  S..  Associate  in  Pomology 

Walter  A.  Huelson,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Horticulture 


POULTRY  HUSBANDRY 
Allen  G.  Philips,  B.  S.  A.,  Chief 

Dwight  C.  Kennard,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Husbandry 

SOILS  AND  CROPS 
Alfred  T.  Wiancko,  B.  S.  A.,  Chief 

Martin  L.  Fisher,  M.  S 

Assistant  Chief  in  Soils  and  Crops 

Samuel  D.  Conner,  M.  S 

Associate  Chemist  in  Soils  and  Crops 

Clinton  O.  Cromer,  B.  S Associate  in  Crops 

Sadocie  C.  Jones,  M.  S Associate  in  Soils 

STATE  CHEMIST 

Wm.  J.  Jones,  Jr.,  M.  S.,  A.  C.3  State  Chemist 
Edward  G.  Proulx,  M.  S.1.. Acting  State  Chemist 
Reuben  O.  Bitler,  B.  S.2.... Deputy  State  Chemist 

Paul  B.  Curtis,  B.  S.2 Deputy  State  Chemist 

Omar  W.  Ford,  A.  B.2 Deputy  State  Chemist 

Mary  J.  Minton,  B.  S.2 Assistant 

Microscopist  State  Chemist’s  Department 
Herman  J.  Nimitz,  B.  S.2. .Deputy  State  Chemist 
J.  Howard  Roop,  B.  S.2.... Deputy  State  Chemist 

Samuel  F.  Thornton,  B.  S.2 

Deputy  State  Chemist 

Otis  S.  Roberts,  B.  S.2 

Chief  Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

Glenn  G.  Carter,  B.  S.2 

Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

Benjamin  F.  Catherwood,2 

Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

VETERINARY  SCIENCE 
Robert  A.  Craig,  D.  V.  M.,  Chief 
David  B.  Clark,  D.  M.  C.. .Associate  Veterinarian 

Lawrence  C.  Kigin,  D.  V.  M 

Associate  Veterinarian 

Rex  A.  Whiting,  D.  V.  M 

Associate  in  Animal  Pathology 

Carl  H.  Clink,  B.  S Ass’t  in  Serum  Production 

Leo  P.  Doyle,  B.  S Ass’t  in  Animal  Pathology 

Leslie  R.  George,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Animal  Pathology 
Fred  L.  Walkey,  D.  V.  M Ass’t  Veterinarian 

DETAILED  BY  U.  S.  DEPARTMENT  OF 
AGRICULTURE 

Cereal  and  Forage  Crop  Insect  Investigations 
John  J.  Davis,  B.  S..  Entomological 
Assistant  in  Charge 

John  M.  Aldrich,  Ph.  D..  Entomological  Assistant 

Walter  H.  Larrimer,  B.  S Scientific  Assistant 

Dean  A.  Ricker,  B.  S Scientific  Assistant 

Chester  F.  Turner,  B.  S Scientific  Assistant 

Seed  Testing 

Anna  M.  Lute,  M.  A Seed  Analyst 


1 In  charge  of  Fertilizer  and  Feeding  Stuff  Control 

2 Connected  with  Fertilizer  and  Feeding  Stuff  Control 

3 Died  August  31,  1917 


RECORDS  FROM  A PURDUE  FARM  FLOCK 


A.  G.  Philips 


SUMMARY 

1.  Leghorn  pullets  were  as  profitable  in  1917  as  during  the  three 
previous  years. 

2.  The  egg  production  per  pullet  per  year  was  from  117.6  to  135.6. 

3.  The  income  per  pullet  per  year  was  from  $2.47  to  $4,098. 

4.  The  net  per  cent,  profit  on  investment  was  from  29.5  to  74.2. 

5.  Leghorn  pullets  each  made  from  $0.64  to  $1.62  profit  per  year. 

6.  Poultry  keeping  was  profitable  in  flocks  ranging  from  100  to 
260  White  Leghorn  pullets. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  Purdue  University  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  has  been 
carrying  on  experimental  work  with  poultry  for  seven  years,  particularly 
along  the  line  of  feeding.  The  question  has  often  been  asked  as  to 
whether  or  not  the  information  and  experience  derived  from  the  feeding 
investigations  could  be  utilized  under  the  conditions  ordinarily  prevail- 
ing on  the  farms  of  Indiana. 

The  Poultry  Department  therefore  planned  an  experiment  to  be 
carried  on  for  several  years,  in  which  a flock  of  from  100  to  260  pullets 
was  maintained  under  ordinary  farm  conditions,  applying  strictly  to  the 
care,  housing  and  feeding  of  this  flock  the  information  which  was  being 
recommended  to  the  farmers  of  the  State. 

OBJECT 

The  object  of  the  experiment  was  to  determine  the  egg  production, 
income,  costs  and  profits  that  might  be  obtained  from  such  a flock  kept 
under  the  conditions  mentioned. 

Experiments  Nos.  1,  2,  3 and  4 were  conducted  during  four  different 
years  as  follows : 

Experiment  No.  1 — December  1,  1913  to  November  30,  1914 

Experiment  No.  2 — December  1,  1914  to  October  31,  1915 

Experiment  No.  3 — November  1,  1915  to  September  30,  1916 

Experiment  No.  4 — October  1,  1916  to  September  30,  1917 

Experiments  Nos.  1 and  2 were  not  started  until  December  1,  be- 
cause mature  pullets  could  not  be  obtained  before  that  date.  As  it  is 
more  practical  and  desirable  to  start  pullets  October  1,  Experiment  No. 
2 was  shortened  to  1 1 months  to  permit  the  next  one  to  begin  November 
1,  and  Experiment  No.  3 was  closed  in  11  months  to  allow  Experiment 
No.  4 to  run  from  October  1 to  September  30.  Thus,  Experiments  Nos. 
1 and  4 are  of  12  months  duration,  and  Experiments  Nos.  2 and  3 are 
of  11  months  duration,  respectively. 


4 


HOUSING 

The  birds  were  housed  during  Experiments  Nos.  i and  2 in  a 20  x 20 
feet  half-monitor  house  built  on  a foundation  of  cedar  posts,  with  one  foot 
of  gravel  for  a floor.  For  Experiments  Nos.  3 and  4,  the  house  was  en- 
larged to  20  x 40  feet,  the  partition  between  the  old  and  new  parts  being 
retained  to  prevent  drafts.  The  construction  was  modern  in  every  re- 
spect and  the  interior  was  equipped  with  feed  hoppers,  dropping  boards, 
nests,  etc.  The  cost  of  building  the  small  house  was  $120.00  and  for 
the  large  size  was  $220.00. 


Fig.  2.  Poultry  house  in  a corn  field.  House  used  in  Experiments  Nos.  1 and  2,  show- 
ing how  corn  can  be  grown  in  the  poultry  yard  successfully  besides  furnishing  shade  for  the 
poultry 

YARDING 

During  the  first  two  years  the  fowls  had  free  range  over  eight  acres 
of  corn,  being  confined  to  the  house  for  a few  weeks  after  each  planting 
time.  For  Experiments  Nos.  3 and  4,  two  lots,  each  an  acre  in  size,  were 
fenced  off  and  the  birds  permitted  to  run  in  one  or  the  other  of  them  at 
all  times.  In  the  fall,  a rye  cover  crop  was  planted  and  a growing  crop 
of  grain  was  harvested  in  one  lot  each  year.  During  the  summer,  oats 
and  beans  were  grown  for  pasture  in  one  lot.  All  seed  planted  was 
charged  as  feed  for  the  chickens  in  the  records,  but  no  rent  was  charged 
for  the  use  of  the  land.  The  land  was  of  gravelly  loam,  well  drained, 
and  but  for  lack  of  shade  would  have  been  considered  ideal.  The  quality 
of  the  grain  crops  was  greatly  improved  in  the  lots  where  the  chickens 
were  allowed  to  roam. 

STOCK 

Each  year  the  stock  consisted  of  Single  Comb  White  Leghorn  pul- 
lets reared  on  the  Purdue  Poultry  Farm  and  except  in  Experiments 
Nos.  1 and  2 they  were  matured  early;  they  were  picked  from  the  flock 
that  remained  after  the  pullets  for  other  experiments  had  been  chosen. 
In  Experiment  No.  3,  the  pullets  were  laying  when  put  into  the  experi- 


5 


ment;  in  the  other  experiments,  they  were  just  ready  to  lay.  The  numbers 
of  birds  at  the  beginning  and  end  of  each  experiment  were  as  follows : 
Experiment  No.  i — at  beginning  ioo — at  end  84 
Experiment  No.  2 — at  beginning  130 — at  end  115 
Experiment  No.  3 — at  beginning  260 — at  end  204 
Experiment  No.  4 — at  beginning  230 — at  end  206 
Males,  consisting  of  cock  birds,  were  kept  with  the  flock  during  the 
breeding  season,  and  their  feed  and  care  only  were  charged  to  the  pul- 
lets, no  credit  being  given  for  any  added  income  that  was  obtained  from 
the  sale  of  hatching  eggs. 


RATIONS  AND  FEEDS 


The  regular  standard  Purdue  laying  ration  was  used  as  a basis  of  a 
year’s  feeding,  which  is  as  follows : 


Grain  Mash 

10  pounds  corn  5 pounds  bran 

10  pounds  wheat  5 pounds  shorts 

5 pounds  oats  3^  pounds  meat  scraps 

Grit,  shell,  ground  bone  and  green  feed  were  available  at  all  times 
and  milk  was  used  to  supplement  any  shortage  in  meat  scraps.  About  50 

pounds  of  skim-milk  or 
buttermilk  were  considered 
equivalent  to  three  and  one- 
half  pounds  of  meat  scraps. 
During  Experiment  No.  4, 
very  little  wheat  was  fed 
and  some  ground  oats  was 
substituted  for  bran.  Dur- 
ing the  molting  season,  one 
pound  of  oil  meal  was 
added  to  the  ration. 

Pricks  ok  Feeds. — 
Feeds  were  charged  at  the 
prices  paid  for  them.  The 
wheat  and  oats  were  pur- 
chased in  large  quantities 
during  the  summer,  which 
helped  reduce  the  cost.  The 
other  feeds  were  bought  in 
smaller  quantities  and  the 
prices  varied  from  month 
to  month.  Wheat  and  corn 
were  the  only  grains  that 
...  , . . . . . . . . , at  any  time  doubled  in  price 

rig.  3.  A dry  mash  feed  hopper,  which  will  hold  J 1 . 

a large  quantity  of  feed;  may  be  left  open  or  closed  in  IQI?  3-S  Compared  with 

and  hung  »„  a wall  preceding  years. 


6 


Table:  I. — Prices  of  Feeds — (Minimum  and  Maximum) 


Feed 

Experiment 
No.  1 
1913-1914 

Experiment 
No.  2 
1914-1915 

Experiment 
No.  3 
1915-1916 

Experiment 
No.  4 
1916-1917 

Corn 

SI  .1(7  to  SI  .215 

$1,44 

1.25  to  l 
0.94)  to 

81.25  to  81.57 

81,71  to  83,75 

Wheat 

1.2.5  to 

1.45 

[>2,16 

1.66 

1.60  to 

2.10 

2.10  to 

3.35 

Oats 

1.08  to 

1.25 

0.94  to 

1,37 

1.37  to 

1.50 

Bran 

1,30  to 

1.50 

1.50 

1,25  to 

1.50 

1.501  to 

2.35 

Shorts 

1.40/  to 

1.70 

1.60  to 

1.70. 

1.35  to 

1.60 

1.70  to 

2.85 

Oil  meal 

1.80 

1,80 

1.95 

2.85 

Ground  oats 

1.55  to 

1,70 

1.85 

Meat  scraps 

2.50  to 

2,60 

2.60 

2.60 

2.60)  to 

3.75 

Grit 

0.53  to 

1.00 

0.53 

0.53:  to 

0.59' 

0.59  to 

0.66 

Bone 

2,25  to 

3.50 

2.25 

2.25  to 

2.35 

Oyster  shell 

0.53  to 

1.00' 

0.53 

0.54  to 

0.50 

0.50  to 

0.66 

Milk  _ _ — ___  _ 

0.25 

0.24  to 

0.25 

0.25  to 

0,30 

0.30  to 

0.50 

METHOD  OF  FEEDING  AND  CARE 

The  grains  were  mixed  and  placed  in  a large  bin  in  the  house,  in 
quantities  sufficient  to  last  about  a month.  The  mash  was  mixed  and 
placed  in  a large  feed  hopper.  It  was  planned  to  arrange  the  feeding  so 
that  the  hens  ate  one-half  as  much  mash  as  grain,  but  with  the  large 
range  available  and  the  outside  feed  plentiful,  this  was  not  possible  ex- 
cept in  the  winter.  This  proportion  was  pretty  well  controlled  in  Ex- 
periment No.  4.  The  grit,  shell  and  bone  were  fed  in  open  hoppers ; the 
mangel  beets  put  on  nails  and  the  milk  or  water  fed  in  buckets.  The 
grain  was  scattered  in  a deep  straw  litter  in  the  morning  and  afternoon, 


Fig.  4.  Wall  nests.  The  wall  of  the  house  serves  as  the  back.  It  may  be  closed  to  pre- 
vent roosting  in  the  nests;  is  cheap  of  construction  and  easily  cleaned 


7 


about  one-third  as  much  in  the  morning  as  in  the  latter  part  of  the  day. 
This  method  kept  the  birds  scratching  and  exercising,  and  increased  the 
appetite  for  mash  throughout  the  day.  The  dry  mash  hopper  was  always 
open  and  everything  but  the  grain  was  accessible  at  all  times. 

The  gravel  floor  was  a nuisance  and  every  spring  and  fall  when  a 
thorough  cleaning  was  given  the  house,  a large  part  of  it  had  to  be  re- 
moved with  the  dirty  litter.  Rats  found  the  house  easy  to  enter  and 
they  burrowed  under  the  sills  at  frequent  intervals.  A dog  was  found 
to  be  the  best  means  of  eliminating  the  rats. 

The  house  would  be  considered  a cold  house,  as  it  was  situated  a 
little  too  low  on  a north  slope  and  the  glass  windows  had  to  be  covered 
with  burlap  during  the  nights  in  winter  to  prevent  rapid  conduction  of 
the  warmer  inside  air.  Shade  was  very  inadequate  and  except  when 
corn  was  grown,  the  birds  stayed  in  the  house  during  the  middle  of  the 
hot  summer  days.  They  had  an  opportunity  to  go  out  at  all  times  during 
the  winter. 

At  no  time  during  the  four  experiments  was  there  any  trained 
poultryman  in  personal  charge  of  the  flocks.  All  new  and  inexperienced 
men  brought  onto  the  farm  were  given  charge  of  the  flocks  under  the 
supervision  of  an  expert  foreman.  This  was  done  in  order  that  any 
results  obtained  might  be  comparable  with  what  might  be  expected  under 
conditions  less  favorable  than  those  existing  at  Purdue.  The  house  was 
a quarter  mile  away  from  the  central  feed  house  and  was  visited  three 
times  daily.  Sanitation  and  cleanliness  were  given  every  consideration. 

WEIGHTS  AND  RECORDS 

A record  was  made  of  all  feed  as  it  was  put  into  the  poultry  house 
and  any  not  consumed  was  weighed  back  the  first  of  each  month ; the 
difference  was  the  monthly  consumption.  Daily  record  was  made  of 
eggs  produced  and  labor  done.  The  labor  was  hard  to  estimate  ac- 
curately and  if  there  is  any  error,  it  is  an  under  rather  than  an  over 
estimation ; only  such  work  was  charged  as  was  actually  done  on  the 
house  or  flock.  When  a pullet  died  or  was  removed  for  sickness,  a record 
was  made  of  it  and  days  lost  deducted  from  the  monthly  total.  Some  eggs 
were  set  and  a record  was  kept  of  the  fertility  and  “hatchability”  of  same. 


8 


Table  II. — Feed  Consumption  (in  pounds) 


Feed 

Experiment 
No.  1 

Experiment 
No.  2 

Experiment 
No.  3 

Experiment 
No.  4 

Corn  ] 

Wheat  V srain 

4380.0 

6206.6 

9683.2 

10741.5 

Oats  ) 

Bran 

Shorts  i 

Ground  oats 
Oil  meal 
Meat  scraps 

1 

> mash 

1 

1129.5 

1208.3 

3092,2 

5198.45 

Total 

5500.5 

7580.9 

12,775.4 

15,939.9 

Grit  and  hone 

108.0 

46.5 

11(4.3 

1(10.3 

Oyster  shell  . 

1)68.5 

289.9 

466.5 

570.8 

Grand  total 

5781.0 

7906.3 

18,356.2 

16,621.05 

Milk  

5571.5 

6322,0 

14,926.7 

9598.4 

Table  II  gives  the  feed  consumption  in  groups  such  as  grain,  mash, 
etc.  It  will  be  noted  that  the  total  amount  consumed  by  a large  flock 
seems  very  great.  In  Experiment  No.  4,  the  fact  that  the  birds  ate  over 
eight  tons  of  feed  and  nearly  five  tons  of  milk  appears  to  be  an  enormous 
amount,  but  per  bird  it  is  less  than  100  pounds.  The  birds  ate  from  two 
to  six  times  as  much  oyster  shell  as  grit. 


Table  III. — Percentage  Egg  Production — (by  months) 


Experiment 
No.  1 

Experiment 
No.  2 

Experiment 
No.  3 

Experiment 
No.  4 

October 

20.3 

November 

12.9 

26.8 

December 

30.0 

7.3 

12,7 

12.1 

January 

40.0 

20.4 

21.8 

13.6 

February 

28.0 

31.7 

38.8 

22.9 

March  _ 

40.0 

60.6 

64,7 

57.0 

April 

71,0 

67.8 

78.0 

66.5 

May 

72.0 

60.0 

66.0 

68.0 

June 

48.0 

57.0 

20.0 

46,0 

July 

28.0 

50.2 

26.0 

43.9 

August 

11.0 

22,6 

22,0 

38.5 

September 

32.0 

12.1 

22.4 

36.5 

October 

14.0 

7.0 

November 

1.4 

Number  eggs  per  hen  ___ 

181.0 

124.3 

117.6 

13-5.6 

9 


Table  III  shows  the  per  cent,  egg  production  per  month..  It  will 
be  noted  that  the  spring  production  is  similar  as  well  as  the  highest  in 
all  years,  regardless  of  total  production,  but  there  is  no  correlation  be- 
tween the  other  months,  one  year  with  another.  It  appears  as  if  birds 
must  be  early  hatched,  well  grown  and  early  matured  before  the  laying 
season,  if  winter  eggs  are  desired.  They  must  be  put  into  the  laying 
quarters  before  they  begin  to  lay.  This  latter  point  is  particularly  shown  in 
Experiment  No.  3.  The  birds  were  ready  to  lay  in  October,  but  the  house 
was  not  ready  for  them  until  November.  They  had  started  laying  in 
October  and  when  moved,  started  a partial  molt  and  almost  ceased  lay- 
ing. High  winter  egg  production  was  not  striven  for,  as  this  is  un- 
natural and  not  to  be  expected.  In  Experiment  No.  4,  during  a sudden 
and  severe  cold  spell  in  December,  enough  combs  were  frozen  to  reduce 
production  seriously  for  two  months. 

In  Experiment  No.  1,  the  pullets  laid  well  in  the  winter,  having  had 
a good  start,  but  since  their  year  ended  November  30,  they  had  a poor 
record  for  the  last  two  months.  Few  birds  lay  in  October  and  Novem- 
ber at  the  end  of  their  pullet  year ; therefore  it  pays  to  start  them  in 
October  at  six  months  of  age.  In  this  experiment,  the  total  egg  pro- 
duction was  practically  as  high  September  30  as  it  was  November  30. 

In  Experiment  No.  2,  the  birds  made  a poor  start  in  December  and 
had  a poor  production  the  next  fall. 

In  Experiment  No.  3,  the  production  was  lower  than  in  the  other 
experiments  except  in  the  spring.  During  the  summer  months,  a time 
when  Leghorns  usually  lay  well,  the  egg  yield  was  unusually  low.  No 
reason  is  known  for  this  poor  lay. 

In  Experiment  No.  4,  the  fall  lay  was  good,  the  winter  lay  poor,  but 
the  spring  and  summer  production  was  excellent,  making  the  yearly  total 
very  satisfactory  for  a large  flock.  The  total  number  of  eggs  per  pullet 
per  year  was  131,  124.3,  117.6  and  135.6  for  Experiments  Nos.  1,  2,  3 
and  4 respectively. 


Table  IV. — Market  Prices  of  Eggs — 

(in  cents) 

Experiment 
No.  1 

Experiment 
No.  2 

Experiment 
No.  3 

Experiment 
No.  4 

October 

40 

November 

46 

45 

December 

42 

43 

42 

56 

January 

32 

41% 

38 

48 

February 

28 

30 

32 

42% 

March 

10 

10 

28 

28 

April  _ _ 

B% 

20 

20 

32 

May 

22 

20 

20 

34 

June 

22 

20' 

21 

30 

July  _ _ 

20 

22 

28 

38 

August  __ 

26 

24 

20 

37 

September 

20 

2l7 

33% 

50 

October 

36 

3 7% 

November 

38 

10 


Table  IV  demonstrates  why  the  birds  were  really  profitable.  The 
egg’s  were  sold  with  the  market  eggs  of  the  farm.  The  market  for  the 
winter  and  late  fall  was  in  New  England  during  the  last  three  experi- 
ments. Throughout  Experiment  No.  i and  during  the  spring  and  sum- 
mer months  of  Experiments  Nos.  2,  3 and  4,  they  were  sold  in  Indian- 
apolis. The  markets  were  wholesale  and  the  prices  are  net,  minus  ex- 
press charges  and  cost  of  cases  for  eggs  in  case  lots  sold  to  a whole- 
sale egg  buyer.  These  prices  are  higher  than  the  average  Indiana  farmer 
secures  and  show  the  advantages  of  being  able  to  ship  in  case  lots  and  to 
select  good  markets.  Many  other  farmers  in  Indiana  are  now  selling  to 
these  same  markets,  proving  that  the  prices  obtained  are  not  unusual 
or  impossible. 

Table:  V. — Income  from  Market  Eggs 


Experiment 
No.  1 

Experiment 
No.  2 

Experiment 
No.  3 

Experiment 
No.  4 

October 

$48,266 

68.025 

November 

$37.87 

34.93 

December 

$32.84 

38.15 

$11,026. 

28.53 

37.90 

January 

52.36 

38.00 

February 

14.91 

44.43 

63.38 

51.10 

March 

22:.60 

38.52 

92.55 

92.10 

April 

32.50 

42.53 

87.93 

117.04 

May 

38.08 

38.20 

81.80 

120.81 

June 

24.55 

34.30 

33.63 

74.20 

July 

13.42 

34.71 

30.426 

70.47 

August 

6.62 

16.36 

30.28 

77.55 

September 

20.54 

9.472 

38.30 

92.25 

October 

11.40 

7.86 

November 

5.156 

Total 

$255,786 

$306,028 

$583,546 

$806.80 

Income  per  average 
number  hens 

$2.76 

$2.47(7 

$2,509' 

$4,008 

Table  V gives  the  income  for  eggs  per  month.  No  credit  is  given 
for  any  eggs  sold  for  hatching  and  all  eggs  set  were  credited  at  market 
prices.  The  sale  of  a few  hundred  hatching  eggs  at  four  to  six  cents 
each  will  help  bring  many  a flock  into  the  profitable  column.  The  in- 
come is  naturally  the  greatest  in  March,  April  and  May,  even  though  the 
prices  are  the  lowest,  for  at  that  time  the  production  is  very  high.  The 
total  income  was  good  in  every  experiment,  but  for  the  purpose  of  com- 
paring one  year  with  another,  it  is  more  practical  to  consider  the  income 
per  hen.  In  figuring  this,  the  average  number  of  hens  in  the  flock  for 
the  year  is  taken,  rather  than  the  number  left  at  the  end  of  the  year, 
which  seemed  the  better  method.  If  figured  on  the  basis  of  hens  left, 
the  amount  would  be  lower.  The  income  per  hen  was  $2.78,  $2.47,  $2.50 
and  $4.09  for  Experiments  Nos.  1,  2,  3 and  4 respectively.  The  very  high 
income  in  Experiment  No.  4 was  due  to  the  excellent  egg  prices  during 
1917. 


II 


Table  VI. — Expenses 


Experiment 
No.  1 
1913-1914 

Experiment 
No.  2 
1914-1915 

Experiment 
No.  3 
1915-1916 

Experiment 
No.  4 
1916-1917 

Cost  of  feed 

Cost  of  straw 

Cost  of  labor 

Depreciation  on  birds  _ 

Mortality 

Depreciation  on  house 

Interest  on  investment 

$90.61 

6.66 

16.1/7 

21.00 

16.00 

12.00' 

113.20' 

$120.57 

5.317 

21.78 

28.76 

20.00' 

12.00 

14.02 

$2217.12 
4.60 
27.94 
51,. 00 

56.00 

22.00 
26.40 

$392.54 

8.77 

36.91 

51.50 

24.00 

22.00 
27.00 

Total  expenses 

$1)74.68' 

$281.44 

$416.06 

$562.72 

Income  market  eggs 

Profit  total 

Profit  per  average  number  birds 

Profit  per  bird  alive  at  end 

Profit  per  cent,  on  investment 

$265.7-8 

81.16 

0.830 

0.966' 

36.8 

$306.02 

74.518 

0.658 

0.648 

29.5 

$583.54 

168.48 

0.706 

0.825 

35.0 

$896.80 

334.08 

1.488 

1.62 

74.2 

Table  VI  shows  the  summary  of  the  year’s  work  for  each  experi- 
ment and  the  figures  are  totals  for  the  flocks.  Labor  was  charged  at 
1 7^  cents  per  hour  during  Experiments  Nos.  i,  2 and  3 and  at  20  cents 
per  hour  in  Experiment  No.  4.  The  birds  were  charged  in  at  $1.00  each 
and  mortality  was  charged  at  the  same  price.  The  hens  were  sold  at  75 
cents  each,  hence  the  depreciation  on  stock  was  25  per  cent,  or  25  cents 
each  for  those  that  lived.  The  depreciation  on  the  house  was  10  per 
cent,  of  the  original  cost  and  included  upkeep.  The  interest  on  the  in- 
vestment of  the  house  and  original  number  of  fowls  was  6 per  cent. 
These  estimates  are  fair  and  what  might  be  expected  under  practical 
conditions.  Some  people  might  charge  in  the  pullets  at  more  than  $1.00 
each  but  it  cost  much  less  than  that  to  produce  them.  During  Experi- 
ment No.  4,  prices  advanced  so  greatly  that  the  hens  actually  sold  at  $1.00 
each  at  the  close  of  the  experiment,  but  they  were  not  so  credited.  In 
Experiment  No.  1,  the  net  profit  was  $81.15  or  3^-8  per  cent,  on  $220.00; 
in  Experiment  No.  2,  the  net  profit  was  $74.58  or  29.5  per  cent  on 
$255.00;  in  Experiment  No.  3,  the  net  profit  was  $168.48  or  35  per  cent, 
on  $480.00;  in  Experiment  No.  4,  the  net  profit  was  $334.08  or  74.2  per 
cent,  on  $450.00.  The  profit  of  $1.62  per  bird  in  Experiment  No.  4 as 
compared  with  $0,825  in  Experiment  No.  3,  indicates  that  during  the  year 
from  October  1,  1916  to  October  1,  1917,  pullets  could  and  did  make  as 
much  profit  as  during  preceding  years  when  feed  prices  were  much  less. 

The  farm  hen  can  and  does  make  a good  interest  on  the  investment 
and  pays  a satisfactory  labor  income.  Any  figures  that  an  experiment 
station  may  give  from  such  investigations  as  these,  are  open  to  criticism, 
because  much  must  be  left  to  the  judgment  of  the  man  doing  the  figur- 
ing. No  attempt  has  been  made  in  using  these  figures  to  mislead  any  one 
as  to  the  possibilities  in  the  poultry  business.  All  kinds  of  changes  can 
be  made,  by  any  farmer  in  the  figures  shown.  He  can  increase  the  labor 
cost,  cut  down  the  egg  income  and  increase  the  original  value  of  the  birds, 
but  still  the  net  per  cent,  profit  will  be  as  good  or  better  than  any  other 


12 


branch  of  agriculture  on  the  farm.  For  a farmer,  the  feed  prices  and 
costs  would  be  less  than  those  charged  in  the  experiments,  because  more 
waste  feeding  materials  are  available  and  hauling  charges  on  grains  are 
not  necessary.  Figures  from  demonstration  flocks  on  several  Indiana 
farms  bear  out  the  figures  in  this  bulletin. 


Fig.  5.  A stand  for  a water  pail.  Permits  the  use  of  a bucket  for  watering  the  poultry 
and  keeps  it  above  the  floor,  insuring  cleanliness 

r> 

For  an  individual  making  poultry  an  important  phase  of  farm  opera- 
tions some  items  of  expense  would  be  greater,  but  they  can  be  counter- 
balanced by  the  sale  of  utility  hatching  eggs.  In  Experiment  No.  4,  the 
eggs  set  by  Purdue  hatched  73  per  cent,  of  all  put  into  the  incubators, 
which  was  considered  a very  good  investment  at  six  cents  each,  for 
hatching. 

This  investigation  is  being  continued  with  yearling  hens  and  more 
data  will  be  available  in  the  future. 


PURDUE  UNIVERSITY 

Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


Bulletin  No.  212 
March,  1918 


PLUMS  AND  CHERRIES 


Published  by  the  Station: 
LAFAYETTE,  INDIANA 
U.  S.  A. 


PURDUE  UNIVERSITY  AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 


BOARD  OF  CONTROL 
Joseph  D.  Oliver.  President.  South  Bend 


Fay  S.  Chandler Indianapolis 

Charles  Downing  Greenfield 

John  A.  Hillenbrand Batesville 

Cyrus  M.  Hobbs Bridgeport 


Winthrop  E.  Stone,  A.  M.,  Ph.  D 


Warren  T.  McCray Kentland 

James  W.  Noel Indianapolis 

George  W.  Purcell Vincennes 

Andrew  E.  Reynolds Crawfordsville 


.President  of  the  University 


ADVISORY  COMMITTEE 
(Under  Legislative  Act  of  1909) 

John  G.  Brown,  Monon D.  B.  Johnson,  Mooresville 

State  Live  Stock  Association  State  Dairy  Association 

U.  R.  Fishel,  Hope D.  F.  Maish,  Frankfort 

State  Poultry  Fanciers'  Association  State  Corn  Growers'  Association 

H.  H.  Swaim,  South  Bend. ...Indiana  Horticultural  Society 


ADMINISTRATION 

Charles  G.  Woodbury,  M.  S.,  Director 

Harry  J.  Reed Assistant  to  the  Director 

Nellie  Tracy Administrative  Assistant 

Mary  K.  Bloom Bookkeeper 

AGRICULTURAL  EXTENSION 
George  I.  Christie,  B.  S.  A.,  Superintendent 

Thomas  A.  Coleman Ass’t  State  Leader 

Field  Studies  and  Demonstrations 

George  M.  Frier,  B.  S.  A Associate  in 

Charge  of  Short  Courses  and  Exhibits 
Mabel  L.  HARLAN..Ass’t  in  Agricultural  Extension 

ANIMAL  HUSBANDRY 
John  H.  Skinner,  B.  S.,  Chief 

Chester  G.  Starr,  B.  S.  A 

Acting  Associate  in  Animal  Husbandry 

Herbert  E.  McCartney,  B.  S.  A 

Ass’t  in  Animal  Husbandry  Extension 

BOTANY 

Herbert  S.  Jackson,  a.  B..  Chief 

George  N.  Hoffer,  M.  S Associate  in  Botany 

George  A.  Osner,  Ph.  D Associate  in  Botany 

Luna  E.  Allison,  B.  S Assistant  in  Botany 

Edwin  B.  Mains,  Ph.  D Assistant  in  Botany 

Harry  R.  Rosen,  M.  S.,  Assistant  in  Rust  Work 

Grace  O.  Wineland,  A.  B..  M.  S 

Assistant  in  Botany 

DAIRY  HUSBANDRY 
Ralph  E.  Caldwell,  B.  S.,  Acting  Chief 

Howard  W.  Gregory,  B.  S 

Associate  in  Dairy  Manufactures 

George  Spitzer,  Ph.  G.,  B.  S 

Associate  in  Dairy  Chemistry 

Harry  M.  Weeter,  M.  S 

Associate  in  Dairy  Bacteriology 

Turner  H.  Broughton,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Creamery  Inspection 

William  F.  Epple,  Ph.  G 

Assistant  in  Dairy  Chemistry 

ENTOMOLOGY 
James  Troop,  M.  S.,  Chief 
Preston  W.  Mason,  B.  S.,  Ass’t  in  Entomology 

HORTICULTURE 
Laurenz  Greene,  M.  S.  A.,  Chief 

Harry  A.  Noyes,  M.  S Associate  in 

Horticultural  Chemistry  and  Bacteriology 
Joseph  Oskamp,  B.  S.,  Associate  in  Pomology 

Walter  A.  Huelson,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Horticulture 


POULTRY  HUSBANDRY 
Allen  G.  Philips,  B.  S.  A.,  Chief 

Dwight  C.  Kennard,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Husbandry 

SOILS  AND  CROPS 
Alfred  T.  Wiancko,  B.  S.  A.,  Chief 

Martin  L.  Fisher,  M.  S 

Assistant  Chief  in  Soils  and  Crops 

Samuel  D.  Conner,  M.  S 

Associate  Chemist  in  Soils  and  Crops 

Clinton  O.  Cromer,  B.  S Associate  in  Crops 

Sadocie  C.  Jones,  M.  S Associate  in  Soils 

STATE  CHEMIST 

Wtm.  J.  Jones,  Jr.,  M.  S.,  A.  C.3  State  Chemist 
Edward  G.  Proulx,  M.  S.A.Acting  State  Chemist 
Reuben  O.  Bitler,  B.  S.2....Deputy  State  Chemist 

Paul  B.  Curtis,  B.  S.2 Deputy  State  Chemist 

Omar  W.  Ford,  A.  B.2 Deputy  State  Chemist 

Mary  J.  Minton,  B.  S.2 .Assistant 

Microscopist  State  Chemist’s  Department 
Herman  J.  Nimitz,  B.  S.2.. Deputy  State  Chemist 
J.  Howard  Roop,  B.  S.2....Deputy  State  Chemist 

Samuel  F.  Thornton,  B.  S.2 

Deputy  State  Chemist 

Otis  S.  Roberts,  B.  S.2 

Chief  Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

Glenn  G.  Carter,  B.  S.2 

Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

Benjamin  F.  Catherwood,2 

Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

VETERINARY  SCIENCE 
Robert  A.  Craig,  D.  V.  M.,  Chief 
David  B.  Clark,  D.  M.  C... Associate  Veterinarian 

Lawrence  C.  Kigin,  D.  V.  M 

Associate  Veterinarian 

Rex  A.  Whiting,  D.  V.  M 

Associate  in  Animal  Pathology 

Carl  H.  Clink,  B.  S Ass’t  in  Serum  Production 

Leo  P.  Doyle,  B.  S Ass’t  in  Animal  Pathology 

Leslie  R.  George,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Animal  Pathology 
Fred  L.  Walkey,  D.  V.  M Ass’t  Veterinarian 

DETAILED  BY  U.  S.  DEPARTMENT  OF 
AGRICULTURE 

Cereal  and  Forage  Crop  Insect  Investigations 
John  J.  Davis,  B.  S..  Entomological 
Assistant  in  Charge 

John  M.  Aldrich,  Ph.  D..  Entomological  Assistant 

Walter  H.  Larrimer,  B.  S Scientific  Assistant 

Dean  A.  Ricker,  B.  S Scientific  Assistant 

Chester  F.  Turner,  B.  S Scientific  Assistant 

Seed  Testing 

Anna  M.  Lute,  M.  A Seed  Analyst 


1 In  charge  of  Fertilizer  and  Feeding  Stuff  Control 

2 Connected  with  Fertilizer  and  Feeding  Stuff  Control 

3 Died  August  31.  1917 


PLUMS  AND  CHERRIES 


Joseph  Oskamp 

The  plum  and  cherry  are  not  of  the  first  commercial  importance  in 
Indiana,  but  they  are  deserving  of  more  intelligent  management  than  is 
commonly  accorded  them.  Of  the  two  fruits,  the  cherry  is  grown  more 
largely  as  a commercial  crop  than  is  the  plum.  Either  fruit  is  preferably 
grown  to  supply  the  demands  of  a local  or  nearby  market  rather  than 
for  distant  shipment.  Cherries,  particularly,  are  of  a delicate  and  per- 
ishable nature  and  because  of  the  large  number  of  pickers  necessary  to 
harvest  the  crop,  they  should  be  grown  near  populous  communities. 

The  chief  place  of  these  fruits  in  Indiana  horticulture  probably 
is  in  the  farm  orchard.  Although  this  position  may  be  a homely  one, 
the  universality  with  which  plum  and  cherry  trees  appear  in  the  door- 
yards  of  the  State  is  ample  evidence  of  their  very  wide-spread  popularity. 

Without  going  into  the  technical  classification  and  bewildering  sub- 
divisions of  plums  and  cherries,  it  might  be  well  to  recall  at  this  time, 
owing  to  their  slightly  different  requirements,  that  there  are  three  main 
classes  of  cultivated  plums;  the  European,  the  Japanese,  and  the  native 
American  plums.  The  Lombard  and  the  Damson  are  among  the  most 
common  varieties  of  the  European  plums  grown  in  Indiana,  the  Bur- 
bank and  the  Abundance  represent  the  Japanese  type,  while  Wild  Goose, 
Weaver,  and  Miner  are  popular  native  American  sorts. 

Among  the  cherries,  the  sour  varieties  are  the  only  ones  of  im- 
portance in  the  State.  The  sweet  cherries  do  not  seem  to  be  generally 
profitable,  although  they  make  an  attractive  tree  for  the  lawn.  The 
Dukes,  hybrids  between  the  sweet  and  sour  cherry,  are  occasionally 
planted. 

SITE 

Plums  and  cherries  seldom  winter-kill  but  they  are  susceptible  to 
late  spring  frosts;  therefore  a location  should  be  selected  that  has  an  out- 
let to  lower  lands,  so  that  the  cold  air  may  drain  away.  Ravines  or 
pockets  into  which  the  cold  air  may  settle,  should  be  avoided. 

The  American  plums  will  grow  under  practically  all  soil  conditions 
existing  in  the  State,  from  the  stiff  clays  and  black  prairie  lands,  to 
soils  of  a pronounced  sandy  nature.  The  European  varieties  find  their 
most  congenial  surroundings  in  a rather  heavy  loam,  while  the  Japanese 
sorts  show  a preference  for  the  more  sandy  soils. 

The  most  important  soil  requirement  of  the  cherry  is  good  drainage, 
as  it  positively  will  not  thrive  in  a wet  soil.  The  sour  cherry  has  a wider 
range  of  adaptation  than  the  sweet  cherry ; in  fact,  locations  in  the  State 
that  seem  suited  in  soil  and  climate  for  the  profitable  production  of  the 
sweet  cherry  are  limited.  It  does  best  on  a well  drained,  sandy  loam. 


4 


PLANTING 

% 

Two  year  old  trees  are  preferable  for  planting  under  normal  con- 
ditions. Being  larger  than  one-year-olds,  they  are  not  quite  so  apt  to  be 
run  over  or  injured.  Three  year  old  trees,  although  sometimes  used,  do 
not  stand  the  shock  of  transplanting  so  well  as  younger  trees.  The 
medium  grade  is  the  most  profitable  size  to  purchase.  The  small  two 
year  old  trees  are  generally  lacking  in  vigor  and  the  abnormally  large 
trees  do  not  transplant  so  successfully. 

It  is  a common  practice  to  overcrowd  plum  and  cherry  trees.  Plums 
and  sour  cherries  should  be  set  18  to  20  feet  apart,  and  sweet  cherries 
at  least  25  feet  apart. 

The  tree  holes  should  be  large  enough  to  allow  the  trees  to  be  plant- 
ed without  crowding  the  roots.  The  roots  should  not  be  needlessly  ex- 
posed to  the  wind  and  sun,  but  kept  moist  by  the  use  of  wet  gunny 
sacks  or  other  means ; the  tree  set  slightly  deeper  than  it  stood  in  the 
nursery  and  as  the  hole  is  being  filled,  the  earth  tramped  well  about  the 
roots. 

Both  cherry  and  plum  trees  should  be  firmly  and  carefully  planted. 
Cherries  especially  are  difficult  to  transplant  and  some  losses  may  be 
expected  even  under  favorable  conditions.  Spring  planting  is  generally 
to  be  preferred. 

SOIL  CULTURE 

Cultivation  of  the  soil  will  insure  the  best  success  where  these  fruits 
are  grown  on  a commercial  scale.  The  ground  should  be  stirred  frequent- 
ly during  the  summer  and  a cover  crop  sowed  in  late  summer  to  be 
turned  under  the  following  spring. 

Tillage  is  often  impractical  with  only  a few  trees,  in  the  home 
orchard.  In  such  case,  a mulch  of  straw,  shredded  fodder,  grass  or 
leaves  spread  about  the  trees  is  very  helpful  in  conserving  the  soil 
moisture.  The  drawback  to  a mulch  system  for  these  fruits  is  the  pro- 
tection it  gives  diseases  and  insects,  particularly  the  plum  curculio. 

PRUNING 

Very  light  pruning  should  be  the  rule.  Cutting  back  the  annual 
growth  is  seldom  advisable  except  in  certain  cases  to  preserve  the 
symmetry  of  the  tree  by  heading-in  unusually  long  shoots.  Young  plum 
trees  may  be  cut  back  moderately  at  planting  time,  but  this  practice 
is  cjuestionable  with  cherries. 

The  shaping  of  the  young  trees  should  not  be  ignored,  however. 
The  first  year,  only  such  scaffold  limbs  should  be  saved  as  are  sufficiently 
well  spaced  on  the  trunk  to  avoid  crowding  in  the  future,  when  second- 
ary limbs  are  formed.  The  central  leader  may  be  allowed  to  grow  for 
the  first  few  years,  when  it  will  generally  become  suppressed  or  can  be 
cut  out  after  five  or  six  well  spaced  main  limbs  have  been  produced. 
The  trees  at  all  times  should  be  kept  moderately  open  by  removing 
crowding  branches  to  admit  light  into  the  tops  and  make  possible  a 
thorough  job  of  spraying.  The  necessary  pruning  may  well  be  done  in 
February  or  March;  needless  to  say,  all  dead  or  unthrifty  wood  should 
be  removed  at  once. 


5 


DISEASES 

Black-knot  is  a common  disease  of  the  plum,  and  to  some  extent 
of  the  cherry,  producing  hard,  charcoal-like  galls  on  the  branches. 

All  diseased  wood  should  be  cut  out  when  it  appears,  and  burned. 
As  the  spores  are  disseminated  as  early  as  April,  it  is  especially  desirable 
to  have  all  knots  removed  by  that  time.  A dormant  application  of  one 
gallon  of  lime-sulfur  solution  to  eight  gallons  of  water  is  a good  sanitary 
measure,  but  not  alone  effective. 

Plum-pockets  cause  the  fruit  of  the  plum  to  become  swollen  and 
distorted  with  a spongy  growth. 

The  dormant  spray,  before  the  buds  open,  using  one  gallon  of  lime- 
sulfur  solution  to  eight  gallons  of  water  has  given  satisfactory  results. 

Brown-rot  affects  the  fruit  of  both  plums  and  cherries.  It  starts 
as  a small  brown,  rotten  spot  and  soon  involves  the  entire  fruit.  The 
disease  rapidly  spreads  through  the  orchard. 

Brown-rot  may  be  controlled  by  two  or  three  summer  applications  of 
lime-sulfur  solution,  one  to  fifty.  Thinning  the  young  fruits  so  that  they 
will  not  touch  when  mature,  is  a great  aid  in  rot  control. 

Powdery  mildezv  is  occasionally  seen  on  the  shoots  and  leaves  of  the 
cherry,  especially  on  young  trees. 

Lime-sulfur  solution,  one  to  fifty,  affords  satisfactory  control. 

Leaf-spot,  sometimes  called  shot-hole  owing  to  the  small  circular 
holes  appearing  in  the  leaves,  is  common  on  both  plum  and  cherry  foli- 
age. After  the  leaves  have  become  riddled  with  holes,  they  turn  yellow 
and  fall.  This  loss  of  foliage  is  very  weakening  to  the  tree  and  is  the 
principal  cause  of  the  unthrifty  appearance  and  unsatisfactory  produc- 
tion of  many  cherry  trees  in  Indiana. 

Three  applications  of  lime-sulfur  solution,  one  to  fifty,  will  hold 
the  disease  in  check. 

INSECTS 

The  Plum-curculio . — This  insect  is  the  main  cause  of  wormy  plums 
and  cherries.  The  adult,  a small,  rough-backed  snout  beetle,  punctures 
the  fruit  in  feeding  and  egg  laying.  In  the  case  of  plums,  the  wormy 
fruit  generally  falls  to  the  ground,  but  with  cherries  it  frequently  re- 
mains on  the  trees. 

The  adult  insects  hibernate  in  weeds,  brush  and  rubbish,  which 
should  be  cleaned  up.  The  larvae  pupate  in  the  ground  and  cultivation 
will  cause  many  of  them  to  be  turned  up  to  the  sun  and  die.  The  larvae 
of  the  curculio  should  not  be  confused  with  the  cherry  fruit-maggot. 
The  former  is  a grub  having  a brownish  head ; the  latter  is  smaller  and 
is  a true  maggot. 

Effective  control  consists  in  spraying  with  arsenate  of  lead,  two 
pounds  of  paste,  or  one  pound  of  powder,  and  two  pounds  of  lime  to  50 
gallons  of  water.  An  application  should  be  made  just  after  the  leaf  buds 
burst,  again  after  the  petals  fall,  and  again  10  days  later. 

The  Pear-slug. — The  adult  of  this  insect  is  a four-winged  fly,  the 
larvae  of  which  feed  principally  upon  cherry  foliage.  They  are  covered 
with  a slime  and  resemble  small  snails.  They  eat  the  upper  surface  of 


6 


the  leaves  leaving  the  skeleton  of  the  leaves  to  wither  and  fall,  some- 
times defoliating  the  entire  tree.  , 

An  application  of  arsenate  of  lead  as  recommended  for  the  cur- 
culio  will  rid  the  trees  of  this  pest.  Road  dust  or  air  slaked  lime  will 
also  destroy  the  slugs. 

Aphids  are  small  plant  lice  which  infest  the  leaves,  causing  them 
to  curl  up. 

A thorough  spraying  should  be  given  the  infested  trees,  particularly 
the  under  sides  of  the  leaves  before  they  curl,  using  one  pint  of  nicotine- 
sulfate1  and  four  pounds  of  soft  soap  to  ioo  gallons  of  water. 

Scale  Insects  do  not  ordinarily  bother  the  sour  cherry,  but  are  quite 
prevalent  on  the  plum  and  sweet  cherry.  The  San  Jose  Scale  is  the 
most  common  and  serious  of  these  pests. 

Spraying  the  orchard  thoroughly  while  the  trees  are  dormant,  with 
lime-sulfur  solution,  using  one  gallon  to  eight  gallons  of  water,  is  ef- 
fective. 

The  Fruit  Tree-bark  Beetle  is  a small  beetle  which  bores  into  the 
bark,  making  shot-like  holes  which  are  connected  beneath  the  bark  by 
winding  channels.  Weakened  and  failing  trees  are  more  liable  to  their 
attacks. 

All  dead  trees  and  limbs  should  be  cut  out  and  burned  early  in  the 
spring,  and  the  orchard  cultivated,  sprayed  and  cared  for  to  induce  a 
vigorous  growth  which  will  be  less  subject  to  attack.  A thick  whitewash 
applied  about  twice  during  the  season  will  serve  as  a repellent  to  egg 
laying. 

The  Cherry  Fruit-fly  has  been  reported  in  the  neighborhood  of 
South  Bend,  as  attacking  the  later  varieties  of  cherries.  The  eggs  are 
laid  in  punctures  in  the  fruit.  The  young  maggots  are  smaller  than  the 
larvae  of  the  curculio. 

Crosby2  advises  about  a pint  of  sweetened  poison  sprinkled  over  the 
tree  in  large  drops,  which  would  probably  attract  the  flies.  The  mix- 
ture consists  of  arsenate  of  lead  three  ounces,  molasses  one  pint,  and 
water  four  gallons.  It  can  be  put  on  with  a small  garden  syringe,  when 
the  flies  first  appear  and  repeated  every  week  until  controlled. 

SPRAY  SCHEDULE 

Dormant  Spray. — Applied  in  late  winter  before  the  buds  open,  for  San 
Jose  scale,  bladder  plum,  etc.,  and  as  a general  sanitary  measure.  Not 
generally  necessary  for  the  sour  cherry.  Use  concentrated  lime-sulfur 
one  gallon  to  eight  gallons  of  water.3  Cover  every  part  of  the  tree 
thoroughly. 

First  Summer  Spray. — Applied  just  as  the  leaf  buds  burst  in  the 
spring,  for  the  curculio,  using  one  pound  of  powdered  or  two  pounds 
of  paste  arsenate  of  lead  and  two  pounds  of  hydrated  lime  to  50  gallons 
of  water.  If  aphids  are  present  at  the  time  of  any  application,  add  one- 
half  pint  of  nicotine-sulfate  to  every  50  gallons  of  solution. 

1 This  recommendation  is  based  on  nicotine  sulphate  containing  40  per  cent,  nicotine. 
For  nicotine  sulphate  of  less  strength,  proportionally  more  material  should  be  used 

2 Bulletin  No.  79,  Part  II,  New  York  State  Department  of  Agriculture 

3 All  recommendations  are  based  on  a concentrate  testing  32  degrees  Beaume.  For  other 
strengths,  different  dilutions  will  be  necessary.  (See  Purdue  Extension  Leaflet  No.  48) 


/ 

Second  Summer  Spray. — Applied  just  after  the  petals  fall  for 
brown-rot,  powdery  mildew,  leaf-spot  and  curculio,  using  concentrated 
lime-sulfur1  diluted  one  to  fifty  and  one  pound  of  powdered  or  two 
pounds  of  paste  arsenate  of  lead  and  two  pounds  of  lime. 

Third  Summer  Spray. — The  same  as  above,  applied  when  the  fruit 
is  about  the  size  of  buckshot. 

Additional  applications  of  a fungicide  at  intervals  of  two  weeks 
will  be  necessary  in  many  cases  to  control  brown-rot  on  the  plum. 

Cherries  should  have  an  additional  spray  after  the  fruit  is  picked 
to  control  the  leaf  spot  effectually. 

POLLINATION  AND  VARIETIES 

The  failure  of  plums  to  set  fruit,  particularly  the  American  and 
Japanese  varieties,  may  frequently  be  traced  to  self-sterility,  or  the  fail- 
ure of  the  pollen  of  a variety  to  fertilize  its  own  flowers.  While  the 
European  sorts  are  not  ordinarily  considered  in  need  of  cross-fertiliza- 
tion, it  is  nevertheless  advisable  in  setting  plum  orchards,  to  plant  at 
least  two  varieties  which  bloom  at  the  same  time  to  insure  proper  pollin- 
ation. 

The  sour  varieties  of  cherries  may  safely  be  planted  alone.  The 
sweet  cherries  in  the  far  west  have  in  many  cases  been  found  wholly  or 
partially  self-sterile,  but  under  Indiana  conditions  this  seems  to  be  a 
minor  factor  in  limiting  fruit  setting.  Here  failure  must  be  attributed 
largely  to  climatic  and  soil  conditions. 

The  following  described  varieties  of  plums  and  cherries  have  fruited 
on  the  Station  grounds.  While  some  of  these  varieties  have  not  fruited 
long  enough  so  that  a report  on  their  behavior  is  entirely  satisfactory, 
yet  it  is  felt  that  such  general  information  as  can  be  given  at  the  present 
time  will  be  helpful  to  many  who  intend  planting  these  fruits.  Harvest- 
ing and  blooming  dates,  are  for  the  season  of  1914.2  The  blooming 
dates  will  be  valuable  in  selecting  varieties  for  cross  pollination.  The 
harvesting  date  is  the  actual  time  at  which  the  crop  was  picked  for 
market.  This  would  vary  considerably  between  varieties,  in  different 
seasons,  or  in  other  localities.  Those  varieties  marked  with  an  asterisk 
are  particularly  suggested  for  the  consideration  of  Indiana  growers. 

It  will  only  be  necessary  to  mention  Opata,  Sapa,  Ezaptan,  Sansota 
and  Tokeya  varieties  of  plums,  which  were  received  through  the  kind- 
ness of  Professor  N.  E.  Hansen.  They  are  small  in  size  and  inferior 
in  quality  and  although  valuable  for  their  hardiness,  many  better  var- 
ieties are  hardy  in  Indiana. 


1 For  the  tender  Japanese  varieties,  the  self-boiled  lime-sulfur,  as  recommended  for 
peaches  in  Purdue  Experiment  Station  Circular  No.  69,  is  safer 

2 Phenological  notes  were  taken  by  Mr.  J.  C.  Grossman,  formerly  orchard  foreman  in 
the  Horticultural  Department 


8 


PLUMS  1 

Wild  Goose.* — Harvested  July  22,  full  bloom  April  27.  Tree  spreading, 
rather  dense,  flat  top,  vigorous,  productive.  Fruit  one  and  one-sixteenth  inches 
in  width,  slightly  oval;  skin  bright  red,  thin,  tough;  flesh  yellowish,  tender, 
juicy,  sweet,  fair  to  good;  stone  adhering.  A favorite  early  variety.  American. 

Climax. — Harvested  July  25,  full  bloom  April  23.  Tree  spreading,  moder- 
ately open,  flat  topped,  wood  subject  to  decay  organisms.  Fruit  large,  two 
inches  in  width,  cordate,  halves  unequal;  skin  dark  purplish  red,  mottled, 
medium  thick,  slightly  tough;  flesh  brownish  yellow,  juicy,  tender,  melting, 
sweet,  aromatic,  very  good;  stone  adhering.  Often  cracks  open  when  ripe; 
very  early  blooming  makes  it  liable  to  frost  injury.  Its  large  size  and  good 
flavor  would  be  appreciated  in  the  home  orchard.  Hybrid. 

Shiro. — Harvested  July  25,  full  bloom  April  25.  Tree  spreading,  open, 
rather  weak  and  subject  to  decay.  Fruit  one  and  one-half  inches  in  diameter, 
round;  skin  clear  yellow,  thin,  almost  transparent;  flesh  yellow,  juicy,  flavor 
sweet  but  flat  and  unattractive;  stone  free.  Hybrid. 

Milton. — Harvested  July  30,  full  bloom  April  27.  Tree  moderately  up- 
right, dense,  round  top,  medium  size,  vigorous,  healthy.  Fruit  one  and  one- 
eighth  inches  in  width,  oblong;  skin  red,  thin,  tough;  flesh  dark  yellow,  mod- 
erately juicy,  sweet,  rather  flat,  quality  fair;  stone  adhering.  Very  similar  to 
Wild  Goose  and  about  same  season.  American. 

Abundance. — Harvested  August  2,  full  bloom  April  23.  Tree  moderately 
spreading,  rather  open,  round  top,  vigorous.  Fruit  one  and  one-half  inches 
in  width,  roundish  ovate;  skin  tough,  purplish  red;  flesh  dark  yellow,  tender, 
melting,  juicy,  sweet  aromatic,  good;  stone  adhering.  A well  known  variety. 
Blooms  early  and  therefore  subject  to  late  spring  frosts.  Must  be  well 
sprayed  on  account  of  brown-rot.  Japanese. 

Hale. — Harvested  August  5,  full  bloom  April  25.  Tree  moderately  up- 
right, round  top,  medium  to  weak.  Fruit  one  and  five-sixteenth  inches  in 
width,  round;  skin  yellow,  rather  tough;  flesh  juicy,  subacid  to  sweet,  fairly 
good;  stone  adhering.  Fruit  rots  badly  and  not  a desirable  market  variety. 
Japanese. 

Robinson. — Harvested  August  5,  full  bloom  April  27.  Tree  quite  spreading, 
open,  round  top,  vigorous,  healthy.  Fruit  fifteen-sixteenths  inch  in  diameter, 
round;  skin  bright  red,  thick,  tough;  flesh  yellow,  medium  to  soft,  juicy,  mild, 
sweet,  fair;  stone  adhering.  American. 

Bartlett. — Harvested  August  7,  full  bloom  April  25.  Tree  decidedly  up- 
right, very  dense,  cone  top,  vigorous  and  healthy.  Fruit  one  and  five-sixteenths 
inches  in  diameter,  round;  skin  purplish  red,  thin,  tender;  flesh  yellow,  rather 
dry,  peculiar  flavor  resembling  Bartlett  pear;  stone  adhering.  Not  a reliable 
variety.  Hybrid. 

Weaver. — Harvested  August  7,  full  bloom  April  29.  Tree  spreading,  vigor- 
ous. Fruit  fifteen-sixteenths  inch  in  diameter,  round;  skin  red,  thick,  tough; 
flesh  yellow,  juicy,  mild,  fair;  stone  adhering.  An  old  time  variety  and  still 
planted.  American. 

Sultan. — Harvested  August  7,  full  bloom  April  25.  Tree  quite  spreading, 
open  top,  only  medium  to  below  in  vigor,  foliage  subject  to  shot-hole.  Fruit 
one  and  one-half  inches  in  diameter,  round;  skin  purple,  medium;  flesh  red, 
juicy,  sweet,  good;  stone  adhering.  European. 

Gold. — Harvested  August  8,  full  bloom  April  27.  Tree  moderately  upright, 
fairly  open,  irregular,  medium  in  vigor,  subject  to  shot-hole  fungus.  Fruit  one 
and  three-sixteenths  inches  in  width,  roundish  oblate;  skin  golden  yellow,  thick, 
tough;  flesh  yellow,  juicy,  subacid,  fair;  stone  adhering.  Not  good  enough  for 
dessert  and  its  color  is  against  it  on  the  market.  Hybrid. 


1 All  Illustrations  are  natural  size 


9 


America.* — Harvested  August  10,  full  bloom 
April  25.  Tree  spreading,  moderately  open,  round 
top,  vigorous,  healthy.  Fruit  roundish  oblate,  one 
and  one-half  inches  in  diameter;  skin  bright  red, 
medium  to  thin;  flesh  yellow,  juicy,  sweet  to  sub- 
acid, fair  to  good ; stone  adhering.  A reliable 
variety.  Hybrid. 

Burbank.* — Harvested  August  12,  full  bloom 
April  25.  Tree  spreading,  moderately  open,  flat  top, 
vigorous,  healthy,  but  some  shot-hole  fungus.  Fruit 
one  and  one-half  inches  in  width,  roundish  conical; 
skin  dark  red  over  yellow,  thin,  tough;  flesh  rich 
yellow,  firm,  meaty,  melting,  juicy,  sweet,  good; 
stone  adhering.  Hardy,  healthy  and  fairly  regular 
bearer  for  plum  ot  its  class.  Japanese. 

Wolf. — Harvested  August  12,  full  bloom  April 
28.  Tree  moderately  upright  to  spreading,  rather 
open,  round  top,  vigorous.  Fruit  one  inch  to  below 
in  diameter,  roundish  oval;  skin  dark  red,  thick, 
tough;  flesh  yellow,  juicy,  sweet,  fair;  stone  free 
or  nearly  so.  American. 

Niagara. — (Bradshaw)  Harvested  August  12,  full 
bloom  April  28.  Tree  upright,  dense,  irregular  top, 
susceptible  to  shot-hole  fungus  and  wood  decaying 
organisms.  Fruit  one  and  one-half  inches  in  width, 
oval;  skin  dark  blue  over  red,  rather  thick;  flesh 
yellowish,  juicy,  subacid,  good;  stone  adhering  to  almost  free.  A plum  of  good 
size,  attractive  in  appearance,  but  tree  is  subject  to  disease  and  often  shy 
bearer.  European. 

Forest  Garden. — Harvested  August  12,  full  bloom  April  28.  Tree  some- 
what spreading,  moderately  open,  round  topped, 
fairly  vigorous,  somewhat  inclined  to  attacks  of 
shot-hole  fungus.  Fruit  one  and  one-eighth  inch- 
es in  diameter,  round;  skin  light  to  dark  red, 
thick,  tough;  flesh  yellow,  juicy,  with  a distinctive 
sugary  flavor,  fairly  good;  stone  almost  free. 

American. 

Cheney. — Harvested  August  12,  full  bloom 
April  28.  Tree  moderately  spreading,  rather 
dense,  round  top,  susceptible  to  shot-hole  fungus. 

Fruit  one  and  one-sixteenth  inches  in  width, 
roundish  oval;  skin  dark  red  over  yellow,  thick, 
tough;  flesh  yellow,  juicy,  fair;  stone  adhering. 

Not  generally  desirable.  American. 

Newman. — Harvested  August  15,  full  bloom 
April  27.  Tree  spreading,  dense,  flat  top,  medium 
in  vigor.  Fruit  seven-eighths  inch  in  width,  oval; 
skin  bright  red,  medium,  tough;  flesh  yellow, 
subacid,  fair;  stone  adhering.  Fruit  small  and 
not  particularly  attractive.  American. 

Chabot.* — Harvested  August  17,  full  bloom 
April  25.  Tree  moderately  spreading,  rather  open, 
large,  fairly  vigorous  and  healthy.  Fruit  one  and 
three-eighths  inches  in  diameter,  roundish  coni- 
cal, almost  cordate;  skin  light  red  over  yellow, 
medium;  flesh  yellow,  firm,  moderately  juicy,  al- 
most sweet,  good;  stone  adhering.  Blooms  slight- 
ly later  than  some  Japanese  varieties.  Japanese. 

Yellow  Egg. — Harvested  August  18,  full 
bloom  April  28.  Tree  moderately  upright,  rather 
dense,  round  top,  medium  large,  fairly  thrifty. 

Fruit  one  and  one-half  inches  in  diameter;  oval; 


Figr.  3.  Burbank 


10 


Fig.  4.  Surprise 


Zskin  clear  yellow,  thick;  flesh  yellow,  coarse,  subacid 
to  sweet,  fair  quality;  stone  free.  A plum  of  good  size 
but  lacking  quality.  European. 

Pottawattamie. — Harvested  August  19,  full  bloom 
April  27.  Tree  spreading,  open,  round  top,  vigorous. 
Fruit  seven-eighths  inch  in  width,  almost  round;  skin 
bright  red,  rather  thin,  very  tough;  flesh  yellow,  watery 
when  ripe,  sweet,  good;  stone  adhering.  Although  small, 
the  fruit  is  sweet  and  good  out  of  hand  and  the  tree  is 
a heavy  cropper.  American. 

Wyant. — Harvested  August  22,  full  bloom  April  28. 
Tree  moderately  spreading,  dense,  round  top,  rather 
small,  vigorous  and  healthy.  Fruit  one  and  one-eighth 
inches  in  width,  oblique,  compressed;  skin  purplish  red, 
thick,  tough;  flesh  yellow,  juicy,  fair  in  quality;  stone 
free.  Hybrid. 

Hawkeye. — Harvested  August  22,  full  bloom  April  28. 
Tree  moderately  upright,  dense,  round  top  to  irregular, 
healthy.  Fruit  one  and  one-eighth  inches  in  diameter, 
round;  skin  dark  red,  thick,  tough;  flesh  yellow,  rather 
soft,  juicy,  sweet,  quality  fair  to  good;  stone  almost 
free.  American. 

Surprise.* — Harvested  August  24,  full  bloom  April 
28.  Tree  moderately  upright,  dense,  round  top,  vigorous, 
healthy.  Fruit  one  and  one-eighth  inches  in  diameter, 
round;  skin  dark  red,  thick,  tough;  flesh  yellow,  juicy, 
sweet,  fair  to  good;  stone  almost  free.  A native  plum  well 
worthy  of  more  extended  planting.  American. 
Lombard.* — Harvested  August  26,  full  bloom  April  27.  Tree  moderately 
upright,  rather  open,  round  topped,  healthy.  Fruit  one  and  one-half  inches  in 
width,  form  oval,  flattened  at  cavity;  skin  purplish 
red,  rather  thin,  tender;  flesh  yellow,  firm,  meaty, 
juicy,  sweet,  fair;  stone  sometimes  free.  A stand- 
ard variety,  suitable  for  home  or  commercial 
planting  although  subject  to  brown-rot.  European. 

DeSoto.* — Harvested  August  28,  full  bloom 
May  5.  Tree  spreading,  open,  round  top,  irregu- 
lar, small,  some  injury  by  shot-hole  fungus.  Fruit 
one  inch  in  diameter;  skin  light  red,  thick,  tough; 
flesh  yellow,  tender,  juicy,  mild,  fair;  stone  al- 
most free.  A late  bloomer.  Worthy  of  trial. 

American. 

October  Purple. — Harvested  August  28,  full 
bloom  April  23.  Tree  moderately  upright,  fairly 
open,  irregular,  moderately  vigorous,  susceptible 
to  shot-hole  fungus.  Fruit  one  and  one-half  inch- 
es in  width,  roundish  oval  to  cordate;  skin  pur- 
ple, thin,  tough;  flesh  yellow,  juicy,  sweet,  fairly 
good;  stone  adhering.  Not  especially  desirable  in 
tree  or  fruit  characters.  Japanese. 

Pond. — Harvested  August  29,  full  bloom  April 
28.  Tree  upright,  dense,  irregular,  healthy,  vigor- 
ous. Fruit  large,  variable,  oval,  necked;  skin 
reddish  purple,  medium;  flesh  yellow,  firm,  meaty, 
sweet,  fair;  stone  partially  adhering.  European. 

Omaha.* — Harvested  August  29,  full  bloom 
April  25.  Tree  spreading,  open,  irregular,  vigor- 
ous, healthy.  Fruit  one  and  three-eighths  inches 
in  diameter,  round;  skin  light  red  over  yellow, 
thin,  tender;  flesh  yellow,  melting,  juicy,  sweet, 
good;  stone  adhering.  Commendable  in  size  and 

quality.  Hybrid.  Fig.  5.  Lombard 


Fig.  6.  Arctic 


Arctic.* — (Moores  Arctic.)  Harvested  September 
1,  full  bloom  April  27.  Tree  moderately  upright, 
dense,  round  top,  vigorous,  healthy.  Fruit  one  and 
one-fourth  inches  in  diameter,  roundish  oval;  skin 
dark  blue,  medium;  flesh  yellow,  firm,  moderately 
juicy,  subacid,  fair;  stone  almost  free.  Good  for 
preserving.  European. 

Diamond.- — Harvested  September  1,  full  bloom 
April  25.  Tree  upright  to  spreading,  rather  dense, 
round  top,  healthy,  vigorous.  Fruit  one  and  five- 
sixteenths  inches  in  width,  oval;  skin  deep  purple, 
thin,  tough;  flesh  yellow,  firm,  coarse,  tender,  rather 
dry,  subacid,  fair;  stone  partially  adhering.  Not 
valuable  as  a dessert  plum  but  sufficiently  attractive 
for  market.  European. 

Purple  Egg. — (Hud- 
son) Harvested  Sep- 
tember 1,  full  bloom 
April  28.  Tree  up- 
right to  spreading, 
round  top,  large,  vig- 
orous, healthy.  Fruit 
one  and  three-eighths 
inches  in  width,  oval; 
skin  dark  reddish 
purple,  thin,  tender; 
flesh  yellow,  a trace 
of  red  at  pit,  firm, 
meaty,  moderately 
juicy,  subacid  to 
sweet;  stone  adhering.  European. 

Monarch.* — Harvested  September  1,  full 
bloom  April  28.  Tree  moderately  upright, 
rather  dense,  irregular  top,  vigorous,  some- 
what subject  to  fungi.  Fruit  one  and  three- 
fourths  inches  wide,  generally  roundish;  skin 
purple,  rather  thin,  tender;  flesh  yellow,  firm, 
meaty,  juicy,  subacid  to 
sweet,  good;  stone  free. 

Suitable  for  dessert  or 
market,  but  requires  late 
spraying  for  rot.  European. 

Miner. — Harvested  Sep- 
tember 1,  full  bloom  April 
29.  Tree  moderately  up- 
right, dense,  round  top, 
vigorous,  fairly  healthy. 

Fruit  one  and  one  thirty- 
second  inches  in  diameter, 

round;  skin  red,  thick,  Fig.  7.  Monarch 

tough;  flesh  tender,  juicy, 

sweet,  good;  stone  adhering.  An  old  variety  and  still 
good.  American. 

Arch  Duke.* — Harvested  September  3,  full  bloom 
April  25.  Tree  upright,  dense,  irregular  top,  fairly  healthy, 

• vigorous.  Fruit  one  and  three-eighths  inches  in  width,  oval, 

necked;  skin  dark  purple,  medium;  flesh  yellow,  firm, 
meaty,  mild  subacid  to  sweet,  good;  stone  free.  Not  the 
best  to  eat  out  of  hand,  but  good  for  culinary  use  and  ex- 
cellent for  shipping.  European. 

Shropshire.* — (Damson)  Harvested  September  3,  full 
Fig.  8.  Shropshire  bloom  April  27.  Tree  upright,  dense,  round  top,  vigorous, 


12 


hardy,  healthy.  Fruit  one  inch  in  width,  oval; 
skin  purple  to  black,  thin;  flesh  greenish  yellow, 
coarse,  juicy,  acid,  fair;  stone  adhering.  One 
of  the  best  plums  of  the  Damson  type,  so  popu- 
lar for  preserves,  etc.  Has  a place  in  either 
the  home  or  commercial  orchard.  European. 

German  Prune. — Harvested  September  10, 
full  bloom,  April  28.  Tree  spreading,  rather 
open,  irregular  top,  vigorous,  healthy.  Fruit 
small,  oval  to  ovate,  halves  unequal;  skin  dark 
purple,  rather  thin,  tough;  flesh  greenish  yel- 
low, firm,  somewhat  dry,  subacid,  fair;  stone 
free.  Planting  is  not  to  be  encouraged  on  ac- 
count of  small  size  and  inferior  quality.  European. 

Green  Gage.* — (Bavay)  Harvested  (Septem- 
ber 20,  full  bloom  April  25.  Tree  moderately  up- 
right, round  top,  fairly  vigorous  and  healthy. 

Fruit  one  and  seven-sixteenths  inches  in  width, 
roundish  oval;  skin  greenish  yellow,  thick, 
tough;  flesh  rich  yellow,  firm,  meaty;  juicy, 
sweet,  mild,  very  good;  stone  free.  One  of  the 
favorites  in  the  home  orchard  and  equally  good 
for  market.  European. 

Grand  Duke.* — Harvested  September  15,  full 
bloom  April  28.  Tree  moderately  upright,  dense, 
round  top,  vigorous,  healthy.  Fruit  one  and  five- 
eighths  inches  in  width,  long  oval,  halves  un- 
equal; skin  purple,  thick,  rather  tough;  flesh 
yellow,  firm,  meaty,  mild,  sweet,  fairly  good; 
stone  adhering.  Rather  free  from  rot  and  a 
good  market  variety.  European. 

CHERRIES 

Dyehouse. — Slightly  earlier  and  fruit  small- 
er than  early  Richmond  but  more  exacting  as 
to  soil  conditions  than  that  variety. 

Early  Richmond.* — Harvested  June  15,  full 
bloom  April  28.  Tree  medium  size,  spreading,  rather  dense,  round  top,  vigor- 
ous, healthy.  Fruit  medium  size,  round;  skin  thin,  bright  red;  flesh  white, 
acid.  The  most  popular  early  sour  cherry. 

Baldwin. — Harvested  June  20,  full  bloom  April  27.  Tree  large,  upright, 
dense,  round  top,  vigorous,  healthy,  unproductive.  Fruit  medium  size;  round; 
skin  dark  red,  tough;  flesh  red,  acid,  good. 

Montmerency.* — Harvested  July  1,  full  bloom  May  1.  Tree  large,  upright, 
dense,  round  top,  vigorous,  healthy.  Fruit  medium  size,  roundish  oblate;  skin 
bright  red,  thin;  flesh  yellowish,  tender,  moderately  acid,  good.  The  favorite 
in  Indiana  for  both  home  and  commercial  planting. 

English  Morello. — (Said  to  be  identical  with  Ragg.)  Very  late  sour  cherry. 
Tree  dwarfish  in  habit  and  lacking  in  vigor.  Fruit  almost  black  with  rich, 
deep  red  flesh  and  juice;  very  astringent  until  fully  ripe.  The  variety  is  sub- 
ject to  the  attacks  of  the  cherry  fruit-fly  where  this  insect  is  found. 


Fig.  9.  Grand  Duke 


Several  varieties  of  sweet  cherries  and  their  hybrids  have  been  tried 
at  this  station.  They  have  given  only  one  crop  worthy  of  the  name  in 
the  last  six  years,  although  the  trees  make  a very  thrifty  growth.  This 
seems  to  be  the  general  experience  over  the  State  with  possibly  a few 
local  exceptions.  Such  being  the  case  it  has  not  been  thought  worth 
while  to  include  descriptions.  If  one  must  plant  sweet  cherries,  the 
Napoleon  is  one  of  the  best  light-colored,  firm-fleshed  varieties,  and 
the  Windsor  one  of  the  best  dark-fleshed  sorts. 


PURDUE  UNIVERSITY 


Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


Bulletin  No.  213 
March,  1918 


Fig.  1.  Effect  of  ground  limestone  on  alfalfa,  Knox  County,  1916.  Where  no  lime- 
stone was  applied  there  was  no  alfalfa 


THE  VALUE  OF  LIME  ON  INDIANA  SOILS 


Published  by  the  Station: 
LAFAYETTE,  INDIANA 
U.  S.  A. 


PURDUE  UNIVERSITY  AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 


BOARD  OP  CONTROL 


Joseph  D.  Oliver.  President,  South  Bend 


Fat  S.  Chandler Indianapolis 

Charles  Downing  Greenfield 

John  A.  Hillenbrand Batesville 

Ctrus  M.  Hobbs Bridgeport 


Winthrop  E.  Stone,  A.  M.,  Ph.  D 


Warren  T.  McCray Kentland 

James  W.  Noel Indianapolis 

George  W.  Purcell Vincennes 

Andrew  E.  Reynolds Crawfordsville 


.President  of  the  University 


ADVISORY  COMMITTEE 
(Under  Legislative  Act  of  1909) 

John  G.  Brown,  Monon D.  B.  Johnson,  Mooresville^ 

State  Live  Stock  Association  State  Dairy  Association 

U.  R.  Fishel,  Hope D.  F.  Maish,  Frankfort - 

State  Poultry  Fanciers-’  Association  State  Corn  Growers'  Association 

H.  H.  Swaim,  South  Bend... .Indiana  Horticultural  Society 


ADMINISTRATION 

Charles  G.  Woodbury,  M.  S.,  Director 

Harry  J.  Reed Assistant  to  the  Director 

Nellie  Tracy Administrative  Assistant 

Mary  K.  Bloom Bookkeeper 

AGRICULTURAL  EXTENSION 
George  I.  Christie,  B.  S.  A.,  Superintendent 

Thomas  A.  Coleman Ass’t  State  Leader 

Field  Studies  and  Demonstrations 

George  M.  Frier,  B.  S.  A Associate  in 

Charge  of  Short  Courses  and  Exhibits 
Mabel  L.  Harlan. .Ass’t  in  Agricultural  Extension 

ANIMAL  HUSBANDRY 
John  H.  Skinner,  B.  S.,  Chief 

Chester  G.  Starr,  B.  S.  A 

Acting  Associate  in  Animal  Husbandry 

Herbert  E.  McCartney,  B.  S.  A 

Ass’t  in  Animal  Husbandry  Extension 

BOTANY 

Herbert  S.  Jackson,  A.  B.,  Chief 

George  N.  Hoffer,  M.  S Associate  in  Botany 

George  A.  Osner,  Ph.  D Associate  in  Botany 

Luna  E.  Allison,  B.  S Assistant  in  Botany 

Edwin  B.  Mains,  Ph.  D Assistant  in  Botany 

Harry  R.  Rosen,  M.  S.,  Assistant  in  Rust  Work 

Grace  O.  Wineland,  A.  B.,  M.  S 

Assistant  in  Botany 

DAIRY  HUSBANDRY 
Ralph  E.  Caldwell,  B.  S.,  Acting  Chief 

Howard  W.  Gregory,  B.  S 

Associate  in  Dairy  Manufactures 

George  Spitzer,  Ph.  G.t  B.  S 

Associate  in  Dairy  Chemistry 

Harry  M.  Weeter,  M.  S 

Associate  in  Dairy  Bacteriology 

Turner  H.  Broughton,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Creamery  Inspection 

William  F.  Epple,  Ph.  G 

Assistant  in  Dairy  Chemistry 

ENTOMOLOGY 
James  Troop,  M.  S.,  Chief 
Preston  W.  Mason,  B.  S.,  Ass’t  in  Entomology 

HORTICULTURE 
Laurenz  Greene,  M.  S.  A.,  Chief 

Harry  A.  Noyes,  M.  S Associate  in 

Horticultural  Chemistry  and  Bacteriology 
Joseph  Oskamp,  B.  S..  Associate  in  Pomology 

Walter  A.  Huelson,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Horticulture 


POULTRY  HUSBANDRY 
Allen  G.  Philips,  B.  S.  A.,  Chief 

Dwight  C.  Kennard,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Husbandry 

SOILS  AND  CROPS 
Alfred  T.  Wiancko,  B.  S.  A.,  Chief 

Martin  L.  Fisher,  M.  S 

Assistant  Chief  in  Soils  and  Crops 

Samuel  D.  Conner,  M.  S 

Associate  Chemist  in  Soils  and  Crops 

Clinton  O.  Cromer,  B.  S Associate  in  Crops 

Sadocie  C.  Jones,  M.  S Associate  in  Soils 

STATE  CHEMIST. 

Wm.  J.  Jones,  Jr.,  M.  S.,  A.  C.3  State  Chemist 
Edward  G.  Proulx,  M.  S.1.. Acting  State  Chemist 
Reuben  O.  Bitler,  B.  S.2....Deputy  State  Chemist 

Paul  B.  Curtis,  B.  S.2 Deputy  State  Chemist 

Omar  W.  Ford,  A.  B.2 Deputy  State  Chemist 

Mary  J.  Minton,  B.  S.2 Assistant 

Microscopist  State  Chemist’s  Department 
Herman  J.  Nimitz,  B.  S.2.. Deputy  State  Chemist 
J.  Howard  Roop,  B.  S.2.. ..Deputy  State  Chemist 

Samuel  F.  Thornton,  B.  S.2 

Deputy  State  Chemist 

Otis  S.  Roberts,  B.  S.2 

Chief  Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

Glenn  G.  Carter,  B.  S.2 

Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

Benjamin  F.  Catherwood2 

Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

VETERINARY  SCIENCE 
Robert  A.  Craig,  D.  V.  M.,  Chief 
David  B.  Clark,  D.  M.  C.. .Associate  Veterinarian 

Lawrence  C.  Kigin,  D.  V.  M 

Associate  Veterinarian 

Rex  A.  Whiting,  D.  V.  M 

Associate  in  Animal  Pathology 

Carl  H.  Clink,  B.  S Ass’t  in  Serum  Production 

Leo  P.  Doyle,  B.  S Ass’t  in  Animal  Pathology 

Leslie  R.  George,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Animal  Pathology 
Fred  L.  Walkey,  D.  V.  M Ass’t  Veterinarian 

DETAILED  BY  U.  S.  DEPARTMENT  OF 
AGRICULTURE 

Cereal  and  Forage  Crop  Insect  Investigations 
John  J.  Davis,  B.  S..  Entomological  % 
Assistant  in  Charge 

John  M.  Aldrich,  Ph.  D..  Entomological  Assistant 
Walter  H.  Larrimer.  B.  S... Scientific  Assistant 

Dean  A.  Ricker,  B.  S Scientific  Assistant 

Chester  F.  Turner,  B.  S Scientific  Assistant 

Seed  Testing 

Anna  M.  Lute,  M.  A Seed  Analyst 


1 In  charge  of  Fertilizer  and  Feeding  Stuff  Control 

* Connected  with  Fertilizer  and  Feeding  Stuff  Control 

* Died  August  31.  1917 


THE  VALUE  OF  LIME  ON  INDIANA  SOILS 


A.  T.  Wiancko  S.  D.  Conner 


S.  C.  Jones 


SUMMARY 

Clover  will  not  thrive  on  acid  soils. 

Liming  is  the  only  practical  means  of  correcting  soil  acidity. 

Three-fourths  of  the  soils  of  Indiana  are  acid  and  in  need  of  liming. 

About  one-fourth  of  our  soils  is  so  very  acid  that  clover  fails  almost 
every  time  it  is  sown. 

About  one-half  of  our  soils  is  of  slight  to  medium  acidity  and  clover 
will  fail  whenever  the  weather  conditions  are  at  all  unfavorable. 

Only  about  one-fourth  of  the  soils  of  Indiana  is  well  enough  sup- 
plied with  lime  to  enable  clover  to  develop  properly. 

A liberal  application  of  pulverized  limestone' or  some  other  form  of 
lime  is  needed  to  insure  a clover  crop  on  any  acid  soil. 

Wherever  clover  fails  to  thrive,  the  soil  should  be  tested  for  acidity. 

If  the  soil  is  acid  enough  to  need  liming  at  all,  at  least  two  tons  per 
acre  of  ground  limestone  or  its  equivalent  in  other  forms  of  lime  should 
be  applied. 

Ground  limestone  may  be  applied  at  any  time,  but  the  best  plan  is  to 
apply  it  on  plowed  ground  and  disk  it  into  the  surface  soil. 

Lime  will  often  produce  immediate  increases  in  grain  and  other 
crops,  but  the  greatest  benefit  derived  from  it  comes  through  increasing 
clover  and  other  legumes  in  the  rotation. 

Following  a good  clover  crop,  it  is  possible  to  grow  good  grain 
or  other  crops. 

The  greater  the  proportion  of  legumes  that  can  be  turned  under, 
either  directly  or  in  the  form  of  manure,  the  easier  it  will  be  to  main- 
tain the  fertility  of  the  soil. 

Lime  is  not  a fertilizer.  Manure  or  fertilizer,  or  both,  should  be 
used  in  addition  to  lime. 

On  seven  experiment  fields  in  different  parts  of  the  State,  ground 
limestone  has  produced  crop  increases  worth  from  $10.50  to  $67.70  per 
acre  per  rotation  of  corn,  wheat  and  clover.  The  average  net  profit  has 
been  $6.78  per  acre  per  year,  and  $2.68  per  dollar  invested. 

INTRODUCTION 

Increasing  crop  yields  from  a few  bushels  of  corn  or  wheat  to  80 
bushels  of  corn  and  30  bushels  of  wheat  per  acre,  is  the  problem  that 
confronts  thousands  of  Indiana  farmers. 

The  Purdue  University  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  through  its 
Department  of  Soils  and  Crops  has  been  conducting  extensive  soil  im- 
provement experiments  in  many  parts  of  the  State.  It  is  determining  in 
a practical  way  through  its  field  investigations,  the  value  of  the  different 
practices,  methods  and  materials  involved,  in  permanent  increase  in  soil 
fertility. 

The  value  and  use  of  lime  as  one  of  several  essentials  in  soil  im- 
provement, is  reported  in  this  bulletin.  The  average  yields  given,  in- 


4 


elude  the  low  yields  of  the  first  years  and  any  crop  failures  resulting 
from  adverse  weather  conditions.  The  use  of  lime,  legumes,  phosphorus 
and  drainage  has  made  it  possible  to  double  and  treble  the  yields  on 
these  experiment  fields  in  five  years. 

Indiana  soils  have  been  depleted  in  organic  matter  and  nitrogen 
more  than  in  anything  else,  and  to  profitably  increase  the  supply  of  these 
valuable  soil  constituents,  it  is  necessary  to  grow  more  legumes  than  are 
now  grown.  Lime  is  of  great  importance  in  increasing  the  fertility  of 
Indiana  soils  and  is  the  key  to  increased  legume  production. 

Three-fourths  of  the  cultivated  lands  of  Indiana  are  acid  in  re- 
action. About  25  per  cent,  of  our  soils  is  so  very  acid  that  clover  will 
fail  almost  every  year.  On  about  50  per  cent,  of  the  cultivated  lands, 
clover  fails  whenever  the  season  is  at  all  unfavorable.  The  remaining 
one-fourth  of  our  soils  is  well  supplied  with  lime,  and  clover  failures 
are  seldom  known.  It  is  possible  by  the  use  of  lime  to  insure  the  growth 
of  clover  on  practically  all  the  soils  of  the  State. 

Lime  will  often  produce  immediate  increases  in  corn,  wheat  and 
other  crops,  but  the  greatest  increases  will  come  after  it  has  exerted  its 
effect  on  the  clover  or  other  legume  in  the  rotation. 

This  bulletin  presents  the  results  that  have  been  secured  by  this  sta- 
tion during  the  last  12  years  from  the  use  of  lime  in  the  form  of  finely 
ground  limestone,  on  seven  experiment  fields  on  different  soil  types  in 
different  parts  of  the  State.  The  crop  yields  that  have  been  secured 
with  and  without  lime  on  the  different  fields  are  presented  in  the  follow- 
ing pages,  together  with  brief  descriptions  of  the  conditions  under  which 
the  experiments  were  conducted  and  concise  discussions  of  the  results. 

THE  SCOTTSBURG  FIELD 

The  experiment  field  at  Scottsburg,  Scott  County,  is  located  on 
Volusia  silt  loam,  commonly  called  “yellow  clay,”  which  is  the  predom- 
inating soil  type  on  the  hill  and  rolling  lands  of  southern  Indiana.  The 
soil  is  of  medium  acidity  with  a very  acid  subsoil.  Pulverized  limestone 
was  applied  in  1906  at  the  rate  of  iooo  pounds  per  acre  and  in  1911  at 
the  rate  of  4000  pounds  per  acre. 

In  Table  I are  shown  the  average  yields  of  corn,  wheat  and  clover 
on  the  limed  plot  and  on  the  untreated  plot  alongside.  The  small  aver- 
age yields  on  this  land  indicate  the  impoverished  condition  of  the  soil 
brought  about  by  many  years  of  exhaustive  cropping.  In  these  experi- 


TablE  I. — Results  from  Ground  Limestone  on  a Corn,  Wheat  and  Clover 
Rotation — Scottsburg  Experiment  Field,  1906-1917 


Average  yields  per  acre 

Average  totals  per  acre 
per  rotation 

Treatment 

Corn, 

busheis 

Stover, 

pounds 

Wheat, 

bushels 

Straw, 

pounds 

Hay, 

pounds 

Value 
of  in- 
crease 

Cost  of 
treat- 
ment 

Net 

returns 

Nothing 

23.0 

2163 

8.1 

748 

379 

Time  - 

29.9 

2551 

10.2 

915 

578 

Increase  for  lime 

6.9 

388 

2.1 

167 

199 

$14.67 

$3.11 

$11.56 

5 


ments  all  the  produce  has  been  removed  from  the  land  except  the  small 
amount  of  second  growth  clover,  which  has  been  plowed  under. 

Table  I shows  also  that  the  liming  has  produced  good  increases  in 
the  yields  of  all  the  crops  as  compared  with  the  small  yields  on  the  un- 
treated land,  the  net  value  of  the  increase  being  $11.56  per  acre  per 
rotation,  or  $3.85  per  acre  per  year  for  the  entire  12  years.  The  profit 
per  dollar  invested  has  been  $3-72.1  Liming  alone  is  not  sufficient  to 
produce  good  crops  on  this  land.  With  better  treatment,  using  manure 
in  addition  to  the  liming,  the  average  yield  of  corn  has  been  over  50 
bushels  per  acre,  wheat  has  averaged  19  bushels  and  the  clover  crop  has 
been  over  three  times  as  large  as  where  lime  alone  was  used. 

THE  NORTH  VERNON  FIELD 

The  experiment  field  at  North  Vernon  in  Jennings  County  is  located 
on  the  whitish  silt  loam  soil,  commonly  known  as  “slash  land.”  This 
type  of  soil  is  flat,  poorly  drained  and  naturally  rather  poor  but  capable 


Fig.  2.  Effect  of  ground  limestone  on  clover,  North  Vernon  field,  1916.  Each  shock  is 
the  produce  of  one-twentieth  acre 

Manure  only  Manure  and  limestone 

3560  pounds  hay  per  acre  5520  pounds  hay  per  acre 


of  raising  large  crops  if  properly  drained  and  treated.  The  soil  is  very 
acid  and  the  subsoil  still  more  acid  than  the  surface.  After  thorough 
tile  drainage  of  the  land,  pulverized  limestone  was  applied  in  1912  at 
the  rate  of  four  tons  per  acre.  In  addition,  this  land  receives  a six-ton 
dressing  of  stable  manure  plowed  under  for  corn  once  in  three  years. 
All  the  crops  have  been  removed  from  the  land  except  the  second  growth 
clover,  which  has  been  plowed  under. 


^-Throughout  this  bulletin  the  crop  increases  produced  have  been  valued  as  follows: 
corn,  $1.00;  wheat,  $2.00;  oats,  70  cents;  soybeans,  $3.00  per  bushel;  corn  stover,  $6.00; 
wheat  straw,  $5.00;  oats  straw,  $6.00  and  hay,  $20.00  each  per  ton.  Ground  limestone  has 
been  valued  at  $3.00  per  ton  on  the  field. 


6 


Table:  II. — Results  from  Ground  Limestone  on  a Corn,  Wheat  and 
Clover  Rotation — North  Vernon  Experiment  Field,  1913-1917 


Treatment 

Average  yields  per  acre 

Average  totals  per  acre 
per  rotation 

Corn, 

bushels 

Stover, 

pounds 

Wheat, 

bushels 

Straw, 

pounds 

Hay, 

pounds 

Value 
of  in- 
crease 

Cost  of 
treat- 
ment 

Net 

returns 

Manure 

62.3 

3849 

10.5 

1230 

2725 

Manure  and  lime 

72.9 

4928 

20.1 

1880 

3700 

Increase  for  lime 

10.6 

1079 

9.6 

650 

975 

$44.41 

$6.00 

$38.41 

Table  II  shows  that  liming  has  proven  to  be  of  great  importance  on 
this  soil  and  has  produced  large  increases  on  all  of  the  crops  in  the  rota- 
tion. It  should  be  noted  that  the  liming  has  shown  these  good  results 
on  land  which  was  well  manured  and  already  producing  good  crops.  The 
wheat  yields  were  not  what  they  might  have  been,  because  of  consider- 
able Hessian  fly  damage  in  two  out  of  the  five  years  that  this  experiment 
has  been  running.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  net  profit  has  been  $38.41  per 
acre  for  each  round  of  the  rotation,  or  $12.80  per  acre  per  year.  For 
each  dollar  spent  for  lime  on  this  land,  the  crop  increases  have  been 
enough  to  pay  back  the  dollar  and  give  a clear  profit  of  $6.40. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  on  land  across  the  fence  to  the  west,  which 
until  five  years  ago  was  a part  of  the  same  field,  the  1916  corn  crop  was 
not  worth  husking,  while  in  the  experiment  field  the  average  yield  was 
67.9  bushels  per  acre.  On  a field  to  the  south,  which  was  considered 
better  land,  except  that  it  was  not  tile  drained,  the  1917  corn  yield  was 
about  30  bushels  per  acre,  while  in  the  experiment  field  the  average  yield 
was  78.5  bushels  per  acre.  These  differences,  of  course,  are  due  in 
large  part  to  the  fact  that  the  experiment  field  is  well  tile  drained,  while 
the  adjoining  fields  have  only  surface  drainage. 

p THE  WORTHINGTON  FIELD 

This  field  is  located  near  Worthington,  Greene  County,  on  Knox 
silt  loam,  commonly  called  “clay.”  This  is  the  predominating  soil  type 
of  the  rolling  uplands  of  that  section  of  the  State  and  is  very  similar  to 
much  of  the  light  colored  so-called  “clay”  soils  of  central  Indiana.  The 
land  had  been  exhaustively  cropped  for  a number  of  years  and  was  very 
much  run  down.  The  soil  was  quite  acid,  with  a very  acid  subsoil.  The 
field  was  laid  out  and  tile  drained  in  the  fall  of  1911,  and  in  the  spring 
of  1912  pulverized  limestone  was  applied  at  the  rate  of  two  tons  per 
acre  on  manured  land.  The  manuring  has  been  at  the  rate  of  six  tons 
per  acre  plowed  under  for  corn  once  in  three  years.  All  the  crops  have 
been  removed  from  the  land  except  the  second  growth  clover,  which  has 
been  plowed  under. 


7 


Fig.  3.  Effect  of  ground  limestone  on  corn,  Worthington  field,  1917.  Each  shock  is 
the  produce  of  one-twentieth  acre 

Manure  only  Manure  and  limestone 

35.6  bushels  corn  per  acre  49.3  bushels  corn  per  acre 


Table  III. — Results  from  Ground  Limestone  on  a Corn,  Wheat  and 
Clover  Rotation — Worthington  Experiment  Field,  1913-1917 


Treatment 

Average  yields  per  acre 

Average  totals  per  acre 
per  rotation 

Corn, 

bushels 

Stover, 

pounds 

Wheat, 

bushels 

Straw, 

pounds 

Hay, 

pounds 

Value 
of  in- 
crease 

Cost  of 
treats 
ment 

Net 

return* 

Manure 

31.1 

2297 

9.9 

792 

2623 

Manure  and  lime 

39.3 

2671 

12.3 

1142 

4680 

Increase  for  lime 

8.2 

374 

2.4 

350 

2057 

$35.56 

$3.00 

$32.56 

In  Table  III  are  shown  the  average  annual  crop  yields,  the  in- 
creases produced  by  liming  over  and  above  manuring  and  the  financial 
results.  As  at  North  Vernon,  the  liming  has  increased  all  of  the  crops, 
giving  a profit  of  $32.56  per  acre  per  rotation,  or  $10.85  Per  acre  Per 
year  and  the  same  amount  per  dollar  invested  in  the  limestone. 

The  relatively  low  grain  yields  on  this  field  were  due  to  two  seasons 
of  extremely  dry  weather  for  the  corn  and  one  entire  failure  of  the 
wheat  crop  due  to  winterkilling.  That  this  land  is  being  improved  is 
borne  out  by  the  fact  that  the  lime  and  manure  treatment  last  year  pro- 
duced 56  bushels  of  corn  and  30  bushels  of  wheat  per  acre. 

THE  BEDFORD  FIELD 

This  experiment  field  is  located  on  the  Moses  Fell  Annex  Farm  near 
Bedford,  Lawrence  County,  on  a medium  acid,  yellowish-brown  silt  loam 
soil  which  is  representative  of  much  of  the  upland  of  Lawrence  and  ad- 
joining counties.  The  field  was  laid  out  and  thoroughly  tile  drained  in 


Fig:.  4.  Effect  of  ground  limestone  on  clover,  Worthington  field,  1917.  Each  shock  is 
the  produce  of  one-twentieth  acre 

Manure  and  limestone  Manure  only 

6460  pounds  hay  per  acre  3740  pounds  hay  per  acre 


1915.  Pulverized  limestone  was  applied  at  the  rate  of  four  tons  per 
acre.  The  manuring  has  been  at  the  rate  of  six  ions  per  acre  plowed 
under  for  corn.  All  the  crops  have  been  removed  from  the  land  except 
a light  soybean  crop,  which  was  plowed  under  for  the  1917  corn  crop. 


Table  IV. — Results  from  Ground  Limestone  on  a Corn,  Wheat  and 
Clover  Rotation — Bedford  Experiment  Field,  1916-1917 


Treatment 

Average  yields  per  acre 

Average  totals  per  acre 
per  rotation 

Corn, 

bushels 

Stover, 

pounds 

Wheat, 

bushels 

Straw, 

pounds 

Hay, 

pounds 

Value 
of  in- 
crease 

Cost  of 
treat- 
ment 

Net 

returns 

Manure  ~ 

41.2 

2012 

1.7 

3)85 

1000 

Manure  and  lime 

44.1 

24017 

2.6 

485 

1440 

Increase  for  lime 

2.9 

395 

0.9 

100 

440 

$10.53 

$12.00 

$-1.47 

In  Table  IV  are  shown  the  average  yields  of  corn,  wheat  and  clover, 
the  increases  produced  by  the  limestone  and  the  financial  results.  This 
field  has  been  operated  two  years  only  and  although  the  value  of  the 
increase  from  liming  has  been  $10.53  Per  acre  it  has  not  been  sufficient 
to  pay  for  the  four-ton  application  of  ground  limestone.  On  this  land 
even  thorough  liming  and  manuring  are  not  sufficient  to  produce  the  most 
profitable  crops.  The  addition  of  acid  phosphate  has  increased  the  aver- 
age yield  of  corn  to  63.5  bushels  of  corn  per  acre  and  the  yield  of  clover 
to  two  tons  per  acre.  Due  to  winterkilling  and  much  Hessian  fly  damage, 
the  wheat  crops  of  both  1916  and  1917  were  almost  complete  failures,  as 


9 


can  be  seen  by  the  small  yields.  Had  there  been  reasonable  wheat  crops, 
the  liming  would  doubtless  have  paid  for  itself  in  the  first  two  years  after 
application,  although  enough  was  applied  to  last  for  several  years  longer. 

THE  WESTPORT  FIELD 

This  experiment  field  is  located  near  Westport  in  Decatur  County 
on  a flat,  whitish  silt  loam  soil  very  similar  to  that  of  the  North  Vernon 
field.  The  Westport  soil  is  quite  acid  but  not  as  acid  as  that  on  the 
North  Vernon  field.  Pulverized  limestone  was  applied  at  the  rate  of  four 
tons  per  acre  in  1915,  at  which  time  half  of  the  field  was  tile  drained.  In 
Table  V the  results  secured  on  the  drained  and  undrained  portions  of 
the  field  are  presented  separately,  since  they  show  quite  a marked  differ- 
ence in  the  results.  Tests  of  the  soil  acidity  on  the  drained  and  undrained 
parts  of  this  field  indicate  that  the  drainage  has  materially  decreased  the 
acidity.  This  is  also  borne  out  by  the  fact  that  the  limestone  has  been 
much  more  profitable  on  the  undrained  than  on  the  drained  land.  A 
commercial  fertilizer  containing  10  per  cent,  of  available  phosphoric 
acid  and  5 per  cent,  potash  has  been  used  on  both  the  limed  and  unlimed 
land  alike  at  the  rate  of  500  pounds  per  acre  per  rotation.  All  the  crops 
have  been  removed  from  the  land  except  the  second  growth  clover. 


Table)  V. — Results  from  Ground  Limestone  on  a Corn,  Wheat  and 
Clover  Rotation — Westport  Experiment  Field,  1916-1917 


Treatment 

Average  yields  per  acre 

Average  totals  per  acre 
per  rotation 

Corn, 

bushels 

Stover, 

pounds 

Wheat, 

bushels 

Straw, 

pounds 

Hay, 

pounds 

Value 
of  in- 
crease 

Cost  of 
treat- 
ment 

Net 

returns 

Tile-drained  land 

Fertilizer  _ 

49.9 

21794 

8.3 

675 

4180 

Fertilizer  and  lime_ 

39.5 

32180 

10.0 

800 

48(10 

Increase  for  lime  _ 

9.6 

495 

1.7 

1215 

I18O1 

$10.60 

$12.00 

$4.60 

Undrained  land 

Fertilizer 

19.5 

1500 

3.1 

252 

3430 

Fertilizer  and  lime 

34.6 

1028 

4.3 

348 

3670 

Increase  for  lime 

15.1 

414 

1.2 

91 

240 

$21.36 

$12.00 

$9.30 

In  Table  Y,  it  will  be  seen  that  at  present  crop  prices,  the  liming 
has  been  more  than  paid  for  in  the  first  two  years,  although  the  applica- 
tion has  been  heavy  enough  to  last  for  several  years  longer.  The  net  profit 
per  acre  per  rotation  has  been  $4.60  on  the  tiled  land  and  $9.36  on  the 
untiled  land.  This  is  not  an  argument  against  drainage,  since  the  drained 
land  produced  much  larger  crops  without  liming  than  the  undrained 
land  did  with  liming.  The  tile  drainage  has  in  itself  increased  the  value 
of  the  crops  produced  on  these  plots,  $13.44  per  acre  per  year.  The  low 
average  wheat  yields  on  this  field  were  due  to  winterkilling  and  Hessian 
fly  damage. 


10 


THE  FRANCISCO  FIELD 

This  field  is  located  near  Francisco  in  Gibson  County  on  a medium 
acid,  yellowish-brown  silt  loam  soil  characteristic  of  the  loessial  rolling 
uplands  of  southwestern  Indiana.  The  field  was  started  in  the  fall  of 
1915,  at  which  time  pulverized  limestone  was  applied  at  the  rate  of  three 
tons  per  acre.  In  Table  VI  are  shown  the  average  annual  crop  yields  on 
the  limed  and  unlimed  land,  the  increases  due  to  liming  and  the  financial 
results.  All  the  crops  have  been  removed  from  the  land. 


Table;  VI. — Results  from  Ground  Limestone  on  a Corn,  Wheat  and 
Clover  Rotation — Francisco  Experiment  Field,  1916-1917 


Treatment 

Average  yields  per  acre 

Average  totals  per  acre 
per  rotation 

Corn, 

bushels 

Stover, 

pounds 

Wheat, 

bushels 

Straw, 

pounds 

Hay, 

pounds 

Value 
of  in- 
crease 

Cost  of 
treat- 
ment 

Net 

returns 

Unlimed 

33,9 

31146 

5.9 

669 

1683 

Limed 

46.7 

3940 

9.6 

881 

10118 

Increase  for  lime 

12.8 

704 

3.7 

222 

335 

$26.40 

$9.00 

$17.49 

Although  the  experiments  on  the  Francisco  field  have  been  running 
only  two  years,  the  three-ton  application  of  ground  limestone  has  shown 
good  increases  on  all  the  crops  in  the  rotation,  the  gross  return  amount- 
ing to  $26.49  Per  acre  f°r  the  three  crops.  The  net  return  per  acre  per 
rotation  has  been  $17.49  and  the  profit  per  dollar  invested  has  been  $1.94. 
The  wheat  on  this  field  has  not  yet  had  the  benefit  of  a legume;  when 
it  does,  better  yields  may  be  expected. 

THE  WANATAH  FIELD 

This  field  is  located  near  Wanatah  in  Laporte  County  on  a very 
acid,  black,  sandy  soil.  This  is  a prairie  soil  and  had  never  been  culti- 
vated before  the  experiment  field  was  laid  out  in  1909.  There  are 
several  thousand  acres  of  this  type  of  soil  in  the  Kankakee  region  of 
Indiana  which  are  absolutely  worthless  for  cultivation  until  after  they 
are  limed.  In  this  experiment,  pulverized  limestone  was  applied  at  the 
rate  of  four  tons  to  the  acre  on  untreated  land  and  also  on  fertilized  land, 
as  shown  in  the  following  table.  On  the  fertilized  land  400  pounds  per 
acre  of  2-10-8  fertilizer  have  been  applied  per  rotation. 


II 


Table  VII. — Results  from  Ground  Limestone  on  a Corn,  Oats  and 
Legume  Rotation — Wanatah  Experiment  Field,  1910-1914 


Treatment 

Average  yields  per  ; 

acre 

Average  totals  per  acre 
per  rotation 

Corn, 

bushels 

Stover, 

pounds 

Oats, 

bushels 

Straw, 

pounds 

Legume  1 

Value 
of  in- 
crease 

Cost  of 
treat- 
ment 

Net 

returns 

Hay, 

pounds 

(half) 

Soy- 

beans 

bushels 

(half) 

Nothing 

2.8 

273 

6.7 

28(5 

700 

10.3 

Lime  _ 

15.6 

986 

6.3 

272 

1100 

14.1 

Increase  for  lime 

12,8 

662 

-0.4 

-113 

400 

3.8 

$22.16 

$8.10 

$14.06 

Fertilizer  _ _ 

2.3 

167 

22.3 

951 

500 

9,5 

Fertilizer  and 

lime 

32,8 

10i76 

34.7 

1(481 

I960 

19.0 

Increase  for  lime 

30.5 

1)800 

12.4 

530 

14J50 

9.5 

$67.70 

$8.10 

$56.60 

iOnly  half  of  the  soybean  crop  and  half  of  the  hay  crop  have  been  counted  in  comput- 
ing the  value  of  the  increase,  because  each  was  grown  half  of  the  time  in  the  three-year 
rotation 


As  will  be  noted  in  Table  VII,  it  is  necessary  not  only  to  use  lime 
but  to  use  fertilizer  also.  The  results  on  this  field  are  good  proof  of  the 
fact  that  lime  cannot  take  the  place  of  fertilizer  and  that  fertilizer  can- 
not take  the  place  of  lime.  It  is  only  when  both  are  provided  for,  that 
maximum  results  can  be  obtained.  The  profit  from  liming  on  the  fer- 
tilized land  has  been  $55.60  per  acre  per  rotation  as  against  $14.06  on 
the  unfertilized  land.  The  profit  per  dollar  invested  has  been  $1.73  on 
the  unfertilized  land  and  $6.86  on  the  fertilized  land. 

AVERAGE  OF  ALL  FIELDS 

Counting  all  of  the  crops  raised,  there  have  been  about  100  tests  of 
limestone  on  the  seven  experiment  fields  reported  in  this  bulletin.  The 
average  rate  of  application  has  been  three  and  one-half  tons  per  acre. 
The  average  value  of  the  increase  per  acre  per  year  has  been  $9.31  and 
for  each  dollar  invested  in  limestone,  the  average  net  profit  has  been  $2.68 

HOW  TO  TELL  WHEN  A SOIL  NEEDS  LIMING 

When  clover  persistently  fails  to  make  a satisfactory  growth,  it  is  a 
good  indication  of  soil  acidity  and  the  need  of  liming. 

When  red  sorrel  (Rumex  acetosella)  tends  to  crowd  out  clover  and 
grass,  it  is  a very  good  indication  of  soil  acidity. 

Soil  acidity  can  be  tested  by  means  of  blue  litmus  paper,  which  is 
turned  pink  when  in  contact  with  acid  soil. 

Dark  colored  acid  soils  will  partly  dissolve  in  ammonia  water,  giving 
a dark  colored  solution.  When  such  soils  are  well  supplied  with  lime, 
they  will  give  a clear  solution  after  settling  in  ammonia  water. 

Besides  the  above  tests,  there  are  a number  of  laboratory  methods 
for  determining  the  degree  of  soil  acidity.  Many  county  agricultural 
agents  are  equipped  to  make  such  tests.  If  the  local  county  agent  is  not 


12 


able  to  decide  whether  or  not  a soil  is  acid,  the  Soils  and  Crops  De- 
partment of  the  Experiment  Station  will  make  tests  for  farmers,  free 
of  cost. 

For  full  details  about  making  soil  acidity  tests  and  for  determining 
the  lime  and  fertilizer  requirements  of  soils,  see  Circular  No.  66  of  this 
station,  copies  of  which  may  be  had  upon  application. 

THE  KIND  OF  LIME  TO  USE 

Ground  limestone,  burned  lime,  hydrated  lime,  air-slaked  lime, 
refuse  lime  and  marl  may  all  be  used  for  neutralizing  soil  acidity.  Which 
of  these  different  forms  of  lime  should  be  used  in  any  particular  case 
should  be  determined  by  the  cost  at  which  a given  amount  of  calcium 
carbonate  or  its  equivalent,  in  a reasonably  fine  condition,  can  be  delivered 
to  the  soil.  Aside  from  this,  there  is  no  good  reason  for  discriminating 
against  any  of  these  materials.  Neither  should  magnesian  limestone  be 
considered  either  more  or  less  valuable  than  the  ordinary  calcium  lime- 
stone. 

Theoretically,  ioo  pounds  of  finely  ground  limestone,  56  pounds  of 
freshly  burned  lime,  74  pounds  of  hydrated  lime,  and  about  90  pounds 
of  air-slaked  lime  have  equal  acid  neutralizing  power.  In  calculating 
the  cost,  the  price  of  the  material,  the  freight  if  any,  the  cost  of  hauling 
and  the  labor  involved  in  spreading  it  on  the  land,  should  be  taken  into 
account.  If  finely  ground  limestone  can  be  secured  delivered  at  the 
nearest  railroad  station  at  $2.00  per  ton,  then,  allowing  for  the  smaller 
cost  of  handling  equivalent  amounts  of  the  more  concentrated  forms, 
fresh,  burnt  lime  should  be  secured  at  the  Station  for  $4.00,  hydrated 
lime  for  $3.00,  and  air-slaked  lime  for  about  $2.40  per  ton. 

Usually  ground  limestone  will  be  the  most  economical  and  most 
satisfactory  material  to  use.  A number  of  concerns  all  over  the  State 
are  producing  good  grades  of  ground  limestone  at  reasonable  prices.  In 
considering  the  price,  the  fineness  of  grinding  and  the  freight  rate  must 
be  taken  into  account.  The  fine  material  is  worth  more  than  the  coarse. 
If  coarse  material  is  used,  it  will  require  more  to  get  the  same  immediate 
acid  neutralizing  effect.  A good  grade  of  ground  limestone  should  be 
fine  enough  so  that  all  will  pass  through  a 10-mesh  sieve,  one-half 
through  a 40-mesh  sieve,  and  one-quarter  through  a 100-mesh  sieve.  The 
objection  to  coarse  material,  such  as  screenings,  is  that  it  acts  too  slowly. 
Only  the  fine  dust  will  act  immediately. 

THE  AMOUNT  OF  LIMESTONE  TO  APPLY 

If  a soil  is  acid  enough  to  require  liming  at  all,  it  will  pay  to  apply 
at  least  two  tons  of  finely  ground  limestone  to  the  acre.  Some  soils  may 
require  as  much  as  four  tons  to  the  acre. 

After  the  first  application,  one  or  two  tons  per  acre  applied  every  six 
to  eight  years  will  usually  be  sufficient  to  keep  the  soil  in  good  condition. 

WHEN  AND  HOW  TO  APPLY  GROUND  LIMESTONE 

Liming  may  be  done  whenever  it  is  convenient.  The  best  time  is 
when  preparing  the  seed  bed  for  a crop  after  plowing  either  in  spring  or 
fall.  It  should  not  be  plowed  under  unless  the  ground  can  be  thoroughly 


13 


disked  after  applying  the  lime  and  before  plowing.  In  case  a crop  that 
particularly  needs  lime,  such  as  alfalfa,  has  been  sown  before  discovering 
that  the  soil  is  acid,  a surface  application  of  pulverized  limestone  may  be 
made  satisfactorily.  Such  a surface  application  may  save  the  crop  by 
neutralizing  acidity  through  the  lime  being  dissolved  and  carried  down 
into  the  soil  by  rain  water. 

The  best  way  to  apply  any  form  of  lime  is  by  means  of  a machine 
specially  made  for  this  purpose,  and  when  any  considerable  acreage  is 
to  be  limed  it  will  pay  to  purchase  one  of  these  machines.  When  only  a 


Fig.  5.  Spreading  ground  limestone 


small  acreage-  is  to  be  limed,  it  may  be  spread  by  hand  with  a shovel, 
with  a manure  spreader,  using  a little  manure  to  make  enough  bulk,  or 
through  a large  capacity  fertilizer  attachment  on  a modern  grain  drill, 
going  over  the  ground  often  enough  to  put  on  the  required  amount. 

THE  HOME  GRINDING  OF  LIMESTONE 

In  some  localities,  deposits  of  limestone  are  found  so  near  to  the 
land  that  is  to  be  limed  that  it  may  be  cheaper  to  buy  or  hire  a portable 
grinding  outfit  than  to  buy  the  ready  g'round  limestone  and  have  it 
shipped  in  from  a distance.  Whether  or  not  such  local  or  home  grinding 
will  pay  must  be  determined  in  each  particular  case  after  finding  out 
what  the  delivered  cost  of  the  ready  ground  material  would  be.  Some- 
times a number  of  farmers  having  a convenient  deposit  of  limestone  in 
the  neighborhood  can  club  together,  buy  a portable  pulverizer,  and  pre- 
pare what  ground  limestone  they  need  at  considerably  less  cost  than  the 
purchased  material.  Other  cases  have  come  to  our  notice  where  it  did 
not  pay  either  to  buy  or  hire  a portable  grinder.  Counting  the  cost  or 


14 


rental  of  the  machine  and  the  labor  of  quarrying-  and  handling  the  stone, 
there  may  be  no  saving,  and  the  cost  may  be  even  greater  than  in  using 
purchased  material. 

LIME  IS  NOT  A FERTILIZER 

Neither  ground  limestone  nor  any  other  form  of  lime  will  take  the 
place  of  fertilizer  or  manure,  nor  will  manure  or  fertilizer  take  the  place 
of  lime.  This  is  well  illustrated  in  the  results  obtained  on  the  Wanatah 
experiment  field.  In  that  case,  as  may  be  seen  from  Table  VII,  neither 
fertilizer  alone  nor  lime  alone  produced  large  yields,  but  when  the  two 
were  combined,  very  satisfactory  yields  were  obtained.  On  the  North 
Vernon  and  Worthington  fields,  liming  has  produced  very  profitable  re- 
turns on  manured  land  where  the  manure  itself  had  already  produced 
large  increases  in  the  crop  yields. 

In  this  connection  it  should  be  further  stated  that  in  order  to  get 
the  best  results  from  liming,  provision  must  be  made  to  replenish  the 
organic  matter  and  nitrogen  of  the  soil.  The  best  way  to  do  this  is  to 
grow  more  legumes  and  to  conserve  carefully  and  turn  under  all  manures 
and  crop  residues. 

SOURCES  OF  LIME,  LIME  SPREADERS,  AND  LIMESTONE  PULVERIZERS 

There  are  many  places  in  Indiana  and  nearby  in  neighboring  states 
where  various  forms  of  lime  may  be  secured.  Information  concerning 
convenient  sources  will  be  gladly  furnished  by  the  Soils  and  Crops  De- 
partment. 

The  Department  will  also  supply  the  addresses  of  the  principal  mak- 
ers of  lime  spreaders  and  of  the  makers  of  portable  crushers  for  home 
grinding.  Suggestions  for  home-made  spreaders  can  also  be  supplied. 

GENERAL  RECOMMENDATIONS 

1.  Adopt  a systematic  rotation  of  crops,  including  clover  or  some 
other  legume  at  least  once  every  three  or  four  years. 

2.  Wherever  clover  fails  to  do  well,  apply  two  or  more  tons  of 
ground  limestone  to  the  acre. 

3.  See  that  the  land  is  properly  drained  and  practice  good  tillage 
methods. 

4.  Feed  as  much  of  the  produce  as  possible  and  carefully  conserve 
and  return  to  the  land  the  manure  produced,  as  well  as  any  unused  crop 
residues. 

5.  Apply  from  150  to  200  pounds  per  acre  of  acid  phosphate  or 
some  other  available  phosphate  to  each  grain  crop  in  the  rotation.  In  a 
permanent  system,  where  manure  is  applied  for  corn,  enough  phosphate 
for  the  whole  rotation  may  be  most  conveniently  applied  when  seeding 
wheat  or  oats.  Under  certain  systems  of  farming,  where  the  crops  are 
not  all  fed  on  the  farm,  it  will  pay,  under  normal  conditions,  to  add  some 
nitrogen  and  potash  in  the  fertilizer. 

6.  If  acid  phosphate  or  other  available  phosphate  cannot  be  secured, 
a mixed  fertilizer  as  high  as  possible  in  available  phosphoric  'acid 
should  be  used. 


i5 


SOME  MANUFACTURERS  OF  GROUND  LIMESTONE1 


Firm  name 

Postal  address 

A.  & C.  Stone  and  Lime  Co., 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Brownell  Improvement  Co., 

Chicago,  111. 

Casparis  Stone  Co., 

Kenneth,  Ind. 

Dolese  and  Shepard  Co., 

Chicago,  111. 

Dolomite  Products  Co., 

Maple  Grove,  Ohio 

Erie  Stone  Co., 

Huntington,  Ind. 

Farmers  Ground  Limestone  Co., 

Richmond,  Ind. 

Greely  Stone  Co., 

St.  Paul,  Ind. 

Hoadley  Stone  Co., 

Bloomington,  Ind. 

Lehigh  Stone  Co., 

Kankakee,  111. 

Logansport  Stone  & Construction  Co., 

Huntington,  Ind. 

Louisville  Cement  Co., 

Louisville,  Ky. 

Mitchell  Lime  Co., 

Mitchell,  Ind. 

Monon  Crushed  Stone  Co., 

Monon,  Ind. 

Muncie  Stone  and  Lime  Co., 

Muncie,  Ind. 

Newton  Stone  Co., 

Kentland,  Ind. 

Perry  Stone  Co., 

Ellettsville,  Ind. 

The  Solvay  Process  Co., 

Detroit,  Mich. 

Spencer  Stone  Co., 

Spencer,  Ind. 

Stone  Products  Co., 

Bedford,  Ind. 

U.  S.  Crushed  Stone  Co., 

Chicago,  111. 

Webster  Stone  Co., 

Irvington,  Ky. 

SOME  MANUFACTURERS  OF  LIME 

SPREADERS  1 

American  Seeding  Machines  Co., 

Springfield,  Ohio 

Crown  Manufacturing  Co., 

Phelps,  N.  Y. 

Empire  Drill  Co., 

Shortsville,  N.  Y. 

Excelsior  Drill  Co., 

Springfield,  Ohio 

Guarantee  Manufacturing  Co., 

Baltimore,  Md. 

Hurst  and  Company, 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

International  Harvester  Co., 

Chicago,  111. 

Keystone  Farm  Machinery  Co., 

York,  Pa. 

Nonpareil  Manufacturing  Co., 

Cochranton,  Pa. 

Peoria  Drill  and  Seeder  Co., 

Peoria,  111. 

Thomas  Manufacturing  Co., 

Springfield,  Ohio 

1 These  lists  include  all  Indiana  firms  known  to  the  Station  but  are  doubtless  incomplete 


i6 


AVAILABLE  PURDUE  PUBLICATIONS  ALONG  SOIL  FERTILITY  LINES 


Experiment  Station  Bulletin  No.  155.  Results  of  Cooperative  Fer- 
tilizer Tests  on  Clay  and  Loam  Soils 

Experiment  Station  Bulletin  No.  157.  Unproductive  Black  Soils 

Experiment  Station  Bulletin  No.  170.  The  Reclamation  of  an  Un- 

productive Soil  of  the  Kankakee  Marsh  Region 

Experiment  Station  Bulletin  No.  172.  Soybeans  and  Cowpeas 

Experiment  Station  Bulletin  No.  187.  Acid  Phosphate  vs.  Raw 

Rock  Phosphate  as  Fertilizer 

Experiment  Station  Bulletin  No.  198.  Summaries  of  Soil  Fertility 
Investigations 

Experiment  Station  Bulletin  No.  210 
on  Indiana  Soils 

Experiment  Station  Bulletin  No.  213 
Indiana  Soils 

Experiment  Station  Circular  No 
Better  Wheat 

Experiment  Station  Circular  No.  25.  How  to  Grow  More  and 
Better  Corn 

Experiment  Station  Circular  No.  36.  How  to  Grow  Alfalfa 
Experiment  Station  Circular  No.  49 
Experiment  Station  Circular  No.  66.  The  Lime  and  Fertilizer 
Needs  of  Indiana  Soils 

Experiment  Station  Circular  No.  76.  Increasing  Crop  Yields  for 
War  Needs 

Experiment  Station  Circular  No.  79.  Indiana  Soils  Need  Phos- 
phates 

Department  of  Extension  Bulletin  No.  22.  Hints  on  Soil  Im- 
provement 

Department  of  Extension  Bulletin  No.  46.  Lime  for  Acid  Soils 
Department  of  Extension  Leaflet  No.  3o.  Unproductive  Black 
Soils 

Department  of  Extension  Leaflet  No.  31 
agement  of  Clover 

Department  of  Extension  Leaflet  No.  53 
Department  of  Extension  Leaflet  No.  55.  More  and  Better 
Wheat  in  Indiana 

Department  of  Extension  Leaflet  No.  62.  Sweet  Clover 


The  Value  of  Phosphates 

The  Value  of  Lime  on 

23.  How  to  Grow  More  and 

How  to  Grow 

How  to  Grow  j 
Farm  Manures 


The  Value  and  Man- 
Alfalfa  for  Indiana 


’D,r/ 

,1b 

PURDUE  UNIVERSITY  ...  SITT  tf  lUIHIS  LI8M8V 

Agricultural  Experiment  Station,  5 


Bulletin  No.  214 
April,,  1918 


Fig.  1.  Ten-pound  White  Plymouth  Rock  capons 


COST  OF  RAISING  WHITE  PLYMOUTH  ROCKS 


Published  by  the  Station : 
LAFAYETTE,  INDIANA 
U.  S.  A. 


PURDUE  UNIVERSITY  AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 


BOARD  OF  CONTROL 
Joseph  D.  Oliver,  President,  South  Bend 


Fay  S.  Chandler Indianapolis  Warren  T.  McCray 

Charles  Downing Greenfield  James  W.  Noel 

John  A.  Hillenbrand.... Batesville  George  W.  Purcell 

Cyrus  M.  Hobbs Bridgeport  Andrew  E.  Reynolds. 


Winthrop  E.  Stone,  A.  M.,  Ph.  D President  of  the  University 


Kentland 

...Indianapolis 

Vincennes 

Crawfordsville 


ADVISORY  COMMITTEE 
(Under  Legislative  Act  of  1909) 

John  G.  Brown,  Monon D.  B.  Johnson,  Mooresville 

State  Live  Stock  Association  Statf  m Vuv  " V a o 

U.  R.  Fishel,  Hope D.  F.  Maish,  Frankfort 

STATE  POULTRY  FANCIERS'  ASSOCIATION  STATE  CORN  GROWERS  ^ASSOCIATION 

H.  H.  Swaim,  South  Bend.. ..Indiana  Horticultural  Society 


ADMINISTRATION 
Charles  G.  Woodbury,  M.  S.,  Director 

Harry  J.  Reed Assistant  to  the  Director 

Nellie  Tracy Administrative  Assistant 

Mary  K.  Bloom ...Bookkeeper 

AGRICULTURAL  EXTENSION 
George  I.  Christie,  B.  S.  A.,  Superintendent 

Thomas  A.  Coleman Ass’t  State  Leader 

Field  Studies  and  Demonstrations 

George  M.  Frier,  B.  S.  A Associate  in 

Charge  of  Short  Courses  and  Exhibits 
Mabel  L.  Harlan. .Ass’t  in  Agricultural  Extension 

ANIMAL  HUSBANDRY 
John  H.  Skinner,  B.  S.,  Chief 

Chester  G.  Starr,  B.  S.  A 

Acting  Associate  in  Animal  Husbandry 

Herbert  E.  McCartney,  B.  S.  A 

Ass’t  in  Animal  Husbandry  Extension 

BOTANY 

Herbert  S.  Jackson,  A.  B.,  Chief 

George  N.  Hoffer,  M.  S Associate  in  Botany 

Luna  E.  Allison,  B.  S Assistant  in  Botany 

Edwin  B.  Mains,  Ph.  D Assistant  in  Botany 

Harry  R.  Rosen,  M.  S Assistant  in  Rust  Work 

Grace  O.  Wineland,  A.  B.,  M.  S 

Assistant  in  Botany 

DAIRY  HUSBANDRY 
Ralph  E.  Caldwell,  B.  S.,  Acting  Chief 

Howard  W.  Gregory,  B.  S 

Associate  in  Dairy  Manufactures 

George  Spitzer,  Ph.  G.,  B.  S 

Associate  in  Dairy  Chemistry 

Harry  M.  Weeter,  M.  S 

Associate  in  Dairy  Bacteriology 

Turner  H.  Broughton,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Creamery  Inspection 

William  F.  Epple,  Ph.  G 

Assistant  in  Dairy  Chemistry 

ENTOMOLOG  lr 
James  Troop,  M.  S.,  Chief 
Preston  W.  Mason,  B.  S... Ass’t  in  Entomology 

HORTICULTURE 
Laurenz  Greene,  M.  S.  A.,  Chief 

Harry  A.  Noyes,  M.  S Associate  in 

Horticultural  Chemistry  and  Bacteriology 

Joseph  Oskamp,  B.  S Associate  in  Pomology 

Walter  A.  Huelson,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Horticulture 


POULTRY  HUSBANDRY 
Allen  G.  Philips,  B.  S.  A.,  Chief 

Dwight  C.  Kennard,  Ph.  C.,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Poultiv  Husbandry 

Lewis  H.  Schwartz,  B.  S.  A 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Husbandry 

SOILS  AND  CROPS 
Alfred  T.  Wiancko,  B.  S.  A Chief 
Martin  L.  Fisher,  M.  S. 


Assistant  Chief  in  Soils  and  Crops 

Samuel  D,  Conner,  M.  S ‘ 

Associate  Chemist  in  Soils  and  Crops 

Clinton  O.  Cromer,  B.  S Associate* in  Crops 

Sadocie  C.  Jones,  M.  S Assistant  in  Soils 

STATE  CHEMIST 

Wm.  J.  Jones,  Jr.,  m.  S..  A.  C.3  State  Chemist 
Edward  G.  Proulx,  M.  S.L. Acting  State  Chemist 
Reuben  O.  Bitler,  B.  S.1 2.. Deputy  State  Chemist 

Paul  B.  Curtis,  B.  S.2 Deputy  State  Chemist 

Omar  W.  Ford,  A.  B.2 Deputy  State  Chemist 

Mary  J.  Minton,  B.  S.2 Assistant 

Microscop  ist  State  Chemist’s  Department 
Herman  J.  Nimitz,  B.  SA.Deputy  State  Chemist 
J.  Howard  Roop,  B.  S.2.... Deputy  State  Chemist 
Samuel  F.  Thornton,  B.  S.2 

„ _ Deputy  State  Chemist 

Otis  S.  Roberts,  B.  S.2 

Chief  Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

Glenn  G.  Carter,  B.  S.2 

Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

Benjamin  F.  Catherwood2 

Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 
VETERINARY  SCIENCE 
Robert  A.  Craig,  D.  V.  M.,  Chief 
David  B.  Clark,  D.  M.  C... Associate  Veterinarian 

Lawrence  C.  Kigin,  D.  V.  M 

„ A _ Associate  Veterinarian 

Rex  A.  Whiting,  D.  V.  M 

Associate  in  Animal  Pathology 
Carl  H.  Clink,  B.  S. ..Ass’t  in  Serum  Production 
Leo  P.  Doyle,  B.  S... Ass’t  in  Animal  Pathology 

Leslie  R.  George,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Animal  Pathology 
Fred  L.  Walkey,  D.  V.  M Ass’t  Veterinarian 

DETAILED  BY  U.  S.  DEPARTMENT  OF 
AGRICULTURE 

Cereal  and  Forage  Crop  Insect  Investigations 
John  J.  Davis,  B.  S..  Entomological 
Assistant  in  Charge 

John  M.  ALDRicH,Ph.  D„  Entomological  Assistant 
Walter  H.  Larrimer,  B.  S... Scientific  Assistant 

Dean  A.  Ricker,  B.  S Scientific  Assistant 

Chester  F.  Turner,  B.  S Scientific  Assistant 

Seed  Testing 

Anna  M.  Lute,  M.  A Seed  Analyst 


1 In  charge  of  Fertilizer  and  Feeding  Stuff  Control 

2 Connected  with  Fertilizer  and  Feeding  Stuff  Control 

8 Died  August  31,  1917 


COST  OF  RAISING  WHITE  PLYMOUTH  ROCKS 

A.  G.  Philips 


SUMMARY 

The  object  of  this  experiment  was  to  find  the  various  items  of 
cost  involved  in  producing  and  rearing  broilers,  roasters,  capons  and 
pullets  of  the  White  Plymouth  Rock  variety.  The  work  was  carried  on 
with  two  flocks,  one  in  1916  and  one  in  1917,  and  the  data  from  each 
were  compiled  and  are  discussed  separately.  The  chicks  were  hatched 
and  reared  on  the  Purdue  poultry  farm  under  normal  conditions,  using 
a brooder  stove  colony  house  and  permitting  an  abundance  of  range.  The 
regular  Purdue  rations,  involving  only  those  feeds  which  were  quickly 
available  and  could  be  used  by  any  farmer,  were  fed.  The  prices  of  feeds 
charged  were  the  same  as  those  paid  for  feeds  for  all  the  birds  on  the 
Purdue  farm,  and  the  method  of  management  was  that  which  could 
normally  be  used  with  any  similar  flocks  in  Indiana. 

Some  of  the  data  given  below  show  two  figures  on  the  same  ques- 
tion. The  first  ones  are  for  the  year  1916  and  the  second  ones  for  1917. 
The  costs  during  1917  were  higher,  due  to  higher  costs  of  feed. 

Based  on  nine  and  10  weeks  of  life,  it  took  from  4.8  to  5.6  pounds 
of  grain  and  6.5  to  8.5  pounds  of  skim-milk  at  a total  cost  of  12  cents 
to  produce  a two-pound  White  Plymouth  Rock  broiler. 

Based  on  28  weeks  to  grow  a White  Plymouth  Rock  pullet,  it  re- 
quired from  30  to  27  pounds  of  feed  and  22  to  37  pounds  of  skim-milk 
at  a cost  of  $0.58  to  $0.84. 

Based  on  24  weeks  to  produce  a six  and  one-half  pound  roaster,  it 
required  27  to  24  pounds  of  feed  and  22  pounds  of  skim-milk  at  a cost 
of  $0.53  to  $0.75. 

Based  on  41  weeks  to  produce  a nine  and  one-half  pound  capon,  it 
required  64  to  67  pounds  of  feed  and  62  to  79  pounds  of  skim-milk  at  a 
cost  of  $1.34  to  $1.88. 

White  Plymouth  Rock  cockerels  grew  more  rapidly  than  pullets. 

White  Plymouth  Rock  pullets  hatched  in  March  matured  in  six  to 
seven  months  and  weighed  slightly  over  five  and  one-half  pounds. 

Growth  gains  were  very  irregular  from  week  to  week,  with  chicks, 
pullets,  cockerels  and  capons,  regardless  of  feed  consumed. 

Capons  and  cockerels  grew  with  similar  rapidity  and  retained  simi- 
lar weights  until  they  weighed  six  and  one-half  pounds. 

Capons  responded  to  any  radical  change  in  ration  and  made  big 
gains  on  fattening  rations. 

The  cost  of  feed  to  produce  one  pound  of  gain  was  directly  pro- 
portional to  the  amount  of  feed  consumed  and  at  practically  all  times 
was  less  than  the  selling  price.  The  cheapest  costs  were  during  the 
first  10  weeks  of  life. 

Cockerels  made  gains  at  less  cost  per  pound  for  feed  than  pullets 
or  capons. 


4 


The  gross  cost  of  rearing  a White  Plymouth  Rock  broiler  to  two 
pounds  was  $0.24  and  $0.29. 

The  gross  cost,  including  all  possible  expenses,  of  rearing  a White 
Plymouth  Rock  pullet  was  $0.79  and  $1.03. 

The  net  cost  allowing  credit  for  all  income  from  cockerels,  of  rear- 
ing a White  Plymouth  Rock  pullet  was  $0.43  and  $0.70. 

The  gross  cost  of  rearing  a six  and  one-half  pound  White  Plymouth 
Rock  roaster  was  $0.80  and  $1.04. 

The  gross  cost  of  rearing  a nine  and  one-half  pound  capon  was 
$1.66  and  $2.32. 

Broilers  and  roasters  were  reared  at  as  good  a profit  and  capons 
at  a small  profit  when  all  expenses  were  charged. 

It  may  be  as  profitable  to  sell  surplus  males  for  broilers  as  to  keep 
them  until  they  attain  roaster  size. 

White  Plymouth  Rocks  were  reared  economically  and  profitably 
under  the  market  conditions  and  at  the  prevailing  feed  prices  of  1917. 

INTRODUCTION 

Reproduction  of  the  flock  is  probably  the  most  expensive  problem 
of  the  poultryman’s  business.  Most  farmers  have  no  idea  what  it  costs 
to  produce  a broiler,  roaster  or  pullet ; neither  do  they  know  how  much 
influence  the  sale  of  the  male  may  have  upon  ultimate  or  net  cost  of  the 
pullet.  Commercial  poultrymen  used  to  believe  that  the  sale  of  the  male 
should  pay  for  rearing  the  pullet ; at  the  present  time  it  seems  as  if  the 
male  that  is  marketed  becomes  merely  a by-product  in  the  raising  of 
pullets.  Meat  production  is  as  essential  as  egg  production,  but  how  far 
this  can  be  carried  on  with  poultry,  profitably  and  economically,  is 
problematical.  What  is  a fair  price  to  charge  for  a White  Plymouth 
Rock  pullet  when  selling  her  in  the  fall  and  what  did  she  cost,  are  ques- 
tions for  consideration.  If  poultry  producers  knew  how  much  feed  a 
fowl  consumed  and  how  much  labor  it  took  to  raise  her,  certain  items  of 
management  would  probably  be  changed  with  economical  benefit, 

In  Bulletin  No.  196,  December,  1916,  of  this  station,  figures  were 
given  to  show  the  cost  of  raising  Leghorn  pullets  and  in  order  to  follow 
up  this  work,  a similar  investigation  for  two  years  with  White  Plymouth 
Rocks  was  conducted.  Some  data  are  now  available  concerning  Leg- 
horns but  little  is  known  definitely  concerning  the  Plymouth  Rocks, 
especially  during  the  present  time  of  high  feed  prices.  Few  people  keep 
records  of  costs  and  so  do  not  know  the  factors  that  maytbe  minimizing 
profits  in  their  business. 

This  experiment  was  inaugurated  to  find  the  cost  of  raising  White 
Plymouth  Rock  pullets.  This  included  questions  concerning  cost  of 
feed,  fuel,  and  labor,  mortality,  length  of  time  necessary  to  raise  a 
pullet  and  possible  income  from  the  males  when  sold  at  different  ages. 
It  involved  the  cost  of  production  of  males  sold  as  broilers,  roasters  and 
capons. 


5 

TIME 

Duplicate  experiments  were  carried  on  at  different  times  as  follows : 

Experiment  No.  i,  March  24,  1916  to  January  4,  1917. 

Experiment  No.  2,  March  26,  1917  to  January  6,  1918. 

HOUSING 

The  chicks  were  kept  in  a shed-roofed  portable  colony  house,  10 
feet  long  by  12  feet  deep,  heated  by  a hard  coal  stove.  All  the  chicks 
were  kept  in  this  house  up  to  10  weeks  of  age  and  the  pullets  remained 
in  it  until  the  close  of  the  experiment.  The  males  were  kept  in  colony 
houses  of  similar  construction. 


Fig.  2.  Young  chicks  should  be  started  where  plenty  of  shade  and  green  sod  is  available 


YARDING 

The  brooder  was  placed  in  a yard  well  sodded  with  blue  grass  and 
clover,  until  the  chicks  were  divided  into  two  groups.  The  two  groups 
of  males  and  females  were  then  given  two  lots  150  feet  by  150  feet,  that 
were  planted  to  young  fruit  trees  and  kept  covered  with  oats  or  rye 
pasture.  The  yarding  conditions  were  ideal,  as  shade,  clean,  sweet  land 
and  an  abundance  of  green  food  were  available  at  all  times. 

STOCK 

The  chicks  were  hatched  from  White  Plymouth  Rock  hens  and  pul- 
lets kept  on  the  Purdue  poultry  farm.  They  were  selected  chicks  and 
possessed  all  indications  of  strong  vitality.  In  Experiment  No.  1,  200 
chicks  were  used,  and  in  Experiment  No.  2,  250  chicks  were  chosen. 
With  the  exception  of  the  numbers,  it  is  not  believed  that  there  were 
any  differences  in  the  two  flocks. 


6 


RATIONS 


The  rations  for  both  experiments  were  similar.  In  Experiment  No 


2,  it  was  necessary  that  the  mash 
pensive  grains  reduced  in  amount. 
The  ration  for  Experiment  No. 

Grain 

5 pounds  sifted  cracked  corn  (fine) 
5 pounds  sifted  cracked  wheat 
5 pounds  steel  cut  oats 

15  pounds  total 


be  somewhat  simplified  and  the  ex- 

1 (1916)  was  as  follows: 

Mash 

1.5  pounds  bran 

1.5  pounds  shorts 

1.5  pounds  cornmeal 

1.5  pounds  ground  oats 

1.5  pounds  meat  scraps 
.15  pound  charcoal 

7.65  pounds  total 


Green  feed,  grit,  ground  bone,  and  skim-milk  in  abundance 


The  ration  for  Experiment  No.  2,  (1917)  was  as  follows: 


Grain 

8 pounds  sifted  cracked  corn  (fine) 
2 pounds  sifted  cracked  wheat 
2 pounds  steel  cut  oats 


Mash 

2 pounds  bran 
2 pounds  shorts 
1.2  pounds  meat  scraps 


12  pounds  total  5.2  pounds  total 

Green  feed,  grit,  ground  bone,  and  buttermilk  in  abundance. 

As  the  chicks  developed,  the  corn  was  fed  as  coarse  cracked  corn, 
whole  wheat  was  substituted  for  cracked  wheat  and  oats  were  elimin- 
ated from  the  ration  entirely.  In  Experiment  No.  2,  whole  oats  and  a 
prepared  scratch  feed  were  fed  in  late  summer  and  early  fall,  as  they 
were  cheaper  than  cracked  corn  or  wheat. 


PRICES  OF  FEEDS 

The  feeds  with  the  exception  of  wheat  and  oats  were  purchased  at 
local  feed  stores  at  the  regular  retail  prices.  Wheat  and  oats  were 
bought  from  farmers  at  threshing  time.  Meat  scraps  were  purchased  in 
large  quantities  direct  from  a packing  house.  The  milk  was  bought 
from  the  Purdue  Dairy  Department.  The  following  statement  shows 
prices  for  the  feeds  during  the  two  experiments.  Every  effort  was  made 
to  buy  feeds  of  good  quality  at  as  low  a price  as  possible. 


7 


Range  of  Feed  Prices — Minimum  to  Maximum — Per  One  Hundred 

Pounds 


Peed 

Experiment  No.  1 
1916 

Experiment  No.  2 
1917 

Whole  wheat 

$1.71 

1.50- $  L80 

1.50-  1.80 

$3.36-$3.48 

2.10-  2.35 

Cracked  corn  _ _ 

Dorn  meal 

Wheat 

2.00-  2,20 

2.20-  3.55 

Craeked  wheat 

2,80 

4.00 

Oats 

1.50 

Steel  cut  oats 

3.25 

4.26 

Ground  oats 

1l7I5-  1.90 

Bran 

1.25-  1.55 

1.86-  2.35 

Shorts 

1.35-  1.85 

2.05-  2.85 

Meat  scraps 

2.60 

2.60-  3.75 

Milk  _ 

.30 

.25 

Prepared  sera.teh  fpprl 

3.41 

Ground  bone 

2.26“  2.90 

3.10 

Coal  

8.60 

10.00 

Straw  - 

7.00  (per  ton) 

7.00  (per  ton) 

METHOD  OF  FEEDING  AND  CARE 

The  chicks  were  placed  in  the  brooders  when  about  24  hours  old. 
They  were  not  fed  until  60  hours  of  age.  The  floors  of  the  brooders 
which  were  of  boards,  were  covered  with  one  inch  of  sand  and  a thin 
layer  of  finely  chopped  straw  or  alfalfa  hay.  The  temperature  was  started 
at  100  degrees  and  gradually  reduced  as  the  chicks  grew  larger. 

The  first  feed  was  of  mixed  grains  fed  on  paper  pie  plates,  five 
times  daily.  The  amount  given  was  about  what  the  chicks  would  con- 
sume in  20  or  30  minutes.  Milk  was  kept  before  the  chicks  from  the 
start,  but  water  was  not  given  them  until  they  were  several  weeks  old. 

When  three  or  four  days  old,  the  chicks  would  scratch  the  grain  off 
the  plates,  at  which  time  the  pans  were  discarded  and  the  grain  scat- 
tered in  the  litter,  thus  compelling  them  to  scratch  for  their  grain. 

At  about  the  seventh  day,  the  mash  was  given  in  an  open,  flat- 
bottomed  trough,  covered  with  one-half  inch  mesh  hardware  cloth.  At 
first  it  was  given  only  twice  a day  after  some  grain  feeding,  and  then 
only  what  would  be  eaten  in  a few  minutes.  At  three  weeks  of  age,  the 
chicks  consumed  the  grain  and  mash  in  the  proportions  mentioned  in 
the  preceding  paragraph,  i.  e.,  about  two  to  one.  This  kept  the  needed 
nutrients  in  about  the  proper  proportion.  The  chicks  enjoyed  the  mash 
and  up  until  they  were  10  weeks  of  age,  there  was  a tendency  to 
over,  rather  than  under  eat  it.  Grit  and  bone  were  available  at  all  times. 
Either  sprouted  oats  or  chunks  of  sod  were  used  as  green  feed,  and 
while  a plentiful  supply  was  used,  it  was  impossible  to  judge  the  value. 
Through  an  accident,  it  was  found  in  Experiment  No.  1,  that  the  chicks 
enjoyed  and  would  consume  great  quantities  of  the  hard  coal  ashes 
taken  from  the  brooder.  After  that,  ashes  were  kept  piled  in  one  cor- 


8 


ner  of  the  brooder  at  all  times.  From  all  appearances,  they  supplied  the 
birds  with  something  that  the  ration  lacked. 

When  the  birds  were  about  one  pound  in  weight,  the  grain  was 
changed  to  cracked  corn  and  wheat.  The  grain  and  the  mash  were  put 
into  a large  out-door  hopper  and  made  available  for  the  chicks  at  all 


Fig.  3.  White  Plymouth  Rocks — broiler  size — drinking  milk  from  an  open  pan  with 
removable  slatted  cone  top 

times  and  little  waste  was  possible.  Over  eating  did  not  occur  as  the 
birds  were  not  tempted  to  gorge  when  they  had  free  access  to  all  they 
desired.  They  exercised  a great  deal  and  never  were  eating  at  the  hop- 
per for  a continuous  length  of  time. 

Every  effort  was  made  to  give  the  chicks  all  feed  and  care  that  they 
needed,  but  labor  was  reduced  as  much  as  possible.  The  birds  were  put 
on  grass  as  soon  as  the  weather  permitted  and  the  houses  were  cleaned 
when  necessary.  Sanitation  was  observed  in  the  strictest  sense. 

In  Experiment  No.  i,  the  cockerels  and  culls  were  removed  at  nine 
weeks  and  in  Experiment  No.  2 at  10  weeks,  and  value  credited  as  if 
they  had  been  sold  as  live  broilers  on  a wholesale  market  in  Indiana.  The 
best  cockerels  were  saved  and  about  half  of  them  caponized.  The  pullets 
were  kept  in  one  lot  and  the  cockerels  and  capons  in  another. 

When  the  cockerels  were  24  weeks  old,  they  were  sold  alive  on  the 
wholesale  market.  The  pullets  were  considered  fully  mature  at  28 
weeks,  as  one-half  or  more  were  laying  and  were  removed  from  the  ex- 
periment at  that  time.  The  capons  were  considered  full  grown  at  41 
weeks  of  age  and  were  sold  at  that  time  on  the  wholesale  market. 


9 


During  the  summer  months  the  grain  rations  were  changed  to  meet 
feed  cost  conditions.  For  example,  in  1917  when  the  prices  for  corn  and 
wheat  became  so  high,  a prepared  scratch  feed  was  purchased  in  large 
quantities ; later,  oats  were  used  as  the  only  grain.  When  new  corn  be- 
came available,  soft  corn  on  the  cob  was  purchased  at  a reasonable  price 
and  used  as  grain.  During  the  last  three  weeks  of  both  experiments,  the 
capons  were  fed  a wet  mash  to  insure  a good  finish.  In  November,  1917, 
the  capons  were  not  eating  enough  of  the  mash,  so  it  was  partly  fed  wet 
for  two  weeks.  Practical  feeding  problems  were  met  as  they  developed. 

WEIGHTS  AND  RECORDS 

A record  was  made  of  the  feed  when  it  was  given  to  the  chicks  or 
put  into  hoppers  for  them.  All  that  was  weighed  into  vessels,  that  was 
not  consumed,  was  weighed  back  every  two  weeks  and  charged  in  the 
next  period.  These  amounts  are  called  “weigh-backs.”  The  periods  be- 
tween weighings  were  of  two  weeks  duration.  Subtracting  the  “weigh- 
backs”  from  the  feed  charged  in,  gave  the  actual  consumption  of  feed 
per  period. 

The  chicks  were  weighed  at  the  close  of  every  period  and  if  any 
were  removed  as  dead  or  sold,  the  dates  and  weights  were  recorded. 
Daily  records  were  kept  of  labor,  litter  and  fuel.  When  the  cockerels 
and  culls  were  sold,  credit  was  given  the  pullets  for  their  price,  weight 
and  value.  It  was  an  easy  matter  to  figure  costs  of  everything  except 
labor,  and  that  was  estimated  twice  daily.  The  chances  are  that  it  was 
under,  rather  than  over  estimated. 


Table  I. — Cost  of  Chicks  at  Hatching  Time 


Experiment 
No.  1 

Experiment 
No.  2 

Number  of  eggs  per  chiek 

2: 

2 

Cost  of  eggs  at  2 and  2.5  cents  each 

$0.04 

0.021 

$0.05 

Cost  of  hatching  each 

0.024 

Total  cost  of  one  chick 

0.061 

0.074 

Total  cost  of  all  chicks 

$12.20 

$18.50 

In  Table  I the  cost  of  chicks  at  hatching  time  is  divided  into  two 
parts, — cost  of  eggs  and  cost  of  hatching.  The  number  of  eggs  to  pro- 
duce a chick  is  taken  from  the  hatching  record  of  the  seasons  for  White 
Plymouth  Rocks  on  the  Purdue  Poultry  Farm.  The  eggs  set  were 
valued  at  two  cents  each  in  1916  and  two  and  one-half  cents  each  in 
1917,  which  were  about  the  average  market  prices  received  for  eggs 
sold  from  the  farm  in  the  spring  months.  In  figuring  the  cost  of  in- 
cubation for  1916  the  following  plan  was  used. 


10 


Depreciation  of  390  egg  machine,  cost  $40.00  at  6 per  cent. 


for  one-third  year $0.80 

Fuel  at  4 cents  per  day — 24  days 0.96 

Interest  on  $40.00  at  6 per  cent,  for  one-third  year.  0.80 

Insurance  on  $40.00  machine  at  $0.003 0.12 

Labor  20  minutes  per  day,  24  days  at  20  cents  per  hour 1.60 

Total $4.28 

Cost  of  incubation  per  egg — $0.0107 


For  Experiment  No.  2 in  1917,  the  cost  per  egg  was  $0,012. 


Fig.  4.  Grouping  of  colony  houses  in  orchard,  after  heat  has  been  removed,  saves  labor 


II 


Table  II. — Amount  and  Cost  of  Feed  Consumed  per  Chick  for 
Twenty-eight  Weeks — Two  Years 


Chicks 


Weigh- 

ing 

Average  number 
chicks 

Grain,  mash,  etc., 
in  pounds 

Milk,  in  pounds 

Cost  of  all  feed 

Experi- 

Experi- 

Experi- 

Experi- 

Experi- 

Experi- 

Experi- 

Experi- 

period 

ment 

ment 

ment 

ment 

ment 

ment 

ment 

ment 

No.  1 

No.  2 

No.  1 

No.  2 

No.  1 

No.  2 

No.  1 

No.  2 

1916 

1917 

1916 

1917 

1916 

1917 

1916 

1917 

1 

106.8 

247.9' 

0.288 

0.355 

0.65 

0.54 

$.009 

$.010 

2 

103.0 

246.0 

0.628 

0.537 

1,08 

0.8 

.016 

.016 

3 

193.0 

243.3 

1.093 

0.877 

'1.85 

1.18 

.024 

.021 

4 

191.0 

233.3 

1.579 

1.323 

2.55 

2.11 

.034 

.033 

5 

140 .01 

286.0 

2.063 

1.778 

2.45 

1.94 

.043 

.042 

Total 

5.661 

4.87 

8.58 

6.57 

$.126 

$.122 

Pullets 


6 

88.9 

121.0 

2.301 

1.90 

1.58 

2.20 

$.044' 

$.056 

7 

88.0 

120.7 

2.601 

1.990 

1.29 

3.37 

.046 

.062 

8 

88.0 

120.0 

2.174 

2.010 

2,46 

3.98 

.044 

.064 

9 

88.0 

120.0 

2.388 

2.068 

1.80' 

4.0 

.046 

.066 

10 

88.0 

119.5 

2.595 

2.227 

1.01 

2.5 

.046 

.073 

11 

88.0 

119.0 

3.371 

2.770 

1.59 

2.90 

.061 

.099 

12 

88.0 

119.0 

2.902 

3.1(41 

2.20 

2,93 

.054 

.111 

18 

87.5 

119.0 

3.080 

3.481 

2.18 

4.53  is 

.06 

.108 

14 

'87.0 

119.0 

3.039 

2.641 

1.82 

4.0 

.059 

.082 

Total 

30.111 

27.125 

22.55 

37.16 

$.586 

$.843 

Cockerels  and  Capons 


6 

76.5 

83.8 

2.355 

2,016 

4.07 

1.50 

$.052 

$.058 

7 

75.8 

82.0 

3.217 

2.430 

2.07 

2.20 

.062 

.071 

8 

75.0 

82,0 

2.643 

2,803 

2,97 

1.86 

.054 

.08 

9 

75.0 

82.0 

2.816 

2,387 

2.60 

2.83 

.055 

.069 

10 

75.0 

82.0' 

3.456 

2.44 

1,71 

2.08 

.065 

.08 

11 

74.2 

82.0 

3.007 

3.788 

0.25 

2.06 

.052 

.129 

12 

73.0 

82.0 

4.152 

4.281 

2.72 

.07 

.145 

Total 

27.297 

24.910 

22,29 

21,95 

$.536 

$.754 

Capons 


13 

35.0 

39.0 

3.52 

4.02 

0.56 

4.17 

$.066 

$.128 

14 

35.0 

30.0 

3.42 

4.95 

5.3 

3.21 

.078 

.149 

15 

33.8 

39.0 

3.25 

4.0 

3.43 

4.66 

.067 

.124 

16 

33.0 

39.0 

4.15 

1.9 

4.47 

3.87 

.087 

.041 

17 

33.0 

38.85 

3.95 

5.41 

2.76 

8.29 

.085 

.112 

18 

33.0 

35.0 

3.73 

5.3 

3.0 

6.3 

.08 

.126 

10 

33.0 

35.0 

3.58 

3.52 

2,24 

3.63 

.073 

.102 

20 

38.0 

35.0 

4.85 

5.48 

4.71 

11.06 

.101 

.151 

20y2 

38.0 

35.0 

1.38 

2.98 

5.36 

5.9 

.041 

.075 

Total 

64.778 

67.349 

62.65 

79.61 

$1.34 

$1,884 

1 Since  in  Experiment  No.  1,  the  males  were  sold  at  the  end  of  the  ninth  week  the 
average  number  of  birds  is  lower  in  proportion  than  in  Experiment  No.  2 


12 


In  Table  II  are  given  the  figures  that  show  where  the  greatest  item 
of  cost  of  rearing  exists.  The  number  of  chickens  involved  is  sufficient- 
ly large  to  make  the  data  really  indicative  of  what  might  be  expected 
under  commercial  conditions.  The  consumption  of  feed  increased  from 
week  to  week  with  the  chicks,  in  regular  order,  but  those  in  Experiment 
No.  2 — 1917 — ate  less  than  those  in  Experiment  No.  1 — 1916.  The 
prices  of  feed  were  higher  in  1917,  but  less  consumption  during  the  year 
made  the  cost  per  chick  practically  the  same  up  to  the  time  of  marketing 
the  broilers. 

The  mortality  among  the  pullets  was  extremely  low,  showing  that 
they  were  growing  normally.  The  consumption  of  feed,  though  irregu- 
lar from  week  to  week,  had  a tendency  to  increase  as  the  pullets  de- 
veloped. During  1917,  the  pullets  did  not  consume  as  much  as  in  1916, 
even  though  there  was  quite  an  increase  in  feed  consumption  during  the 
twelfth  and  thirteenth  periods.  This  was  due  to  the  feeding  of  the 
prepared  scratch  feed,  which  was  more  palatable  than  cracked  corn  or 
wheat.  The  milk  consumption  was  very  irregular,  being  controlled 
largely  by  temperature  and  the  condition  of  the  milk ; and  was  nearly  50 
per  cent,  greater  in  Experiment  No.  2 than  in  Experiment  No.  1.  In 
feed  cost  per  chick,  the  amount  was  uniformly  higher  in  1917  than  in 
1916.  Feeds  during  July,  August  and  September  were  very  high  in 
price  in  proportion  to  other  times  of  the  year. 

The  cockerels  and  capons  were  fed  together,  a fact  that  may  not 
be  exactly  fair  to  either,  but  which  was  necessary  under  existing  condi- 
tions. There  was  nothing  to  indicate  that  either  the  cockerels  or  capons 
ate  more  than  the  other,  and  it  was  assumed  that  they  ate  similar 
amounts  while  together.  In  both  experiments,  the  feed  consumption 
tended  to  increase  each  week,  but  in  Experiment  No.  2 it  increased  de- 
cidedly during  the  last  two  periods  for  the  reason  that  the  pullets  ate 
more  about  that  time.  The  feed  consumption  was  greater  in  1916  than 
in  1917;  milk  consumption  was  very  irregular.  The  cost  of  feed  was 
much  higher  in  Experiment  No.  2 than  in  Experiment  No.  1,  due  to 
prevailing  prices,  but  the  total  consumption  was  less. 

The  capons,  after  the  cockerels  were  sold,  did  not  vary  much  from 
period  to  period  in  total  feed  eaten  in  Experiment  No.  1.  In  Experi- 
ment No.  2,  the  consumption  was  more  erratic  and  in  period  16  it  fell 
off  greatly.  No  reason  can  be  given  for  these  varying  appetites  by  the 
birds,  because  the  oats  were  relished  as  well  as  the  corn.  More  pounds 
of  feed  were  used  by  the  capons  in  1917  than  in  1916  making  the  total 
consumption  as  well  as  the  cost  considerably  greater.  It  cost  $1.34  to 
feed  a capon  in  1916  and  $1.88  in  1917. 


i3 


Table:  III. — Consumption  of  Different  Feeds  in  Pounds — per  Bird 


Feed 

Experiment  No.  1 — 1916 

Experiment  No.  2 — 1917 

Chicks 

Pullets 

Cockerels 

Capons 

Chicks 

. Pullets 

Cockerels 

Capons 

Cracked  corn 

1.44- 

2.3 

4.7 

Cracked  wheat 

0.1(9' 

0.1 

Whole  wheat 

1.25 

8.44 

7.75 

10.5 

0.92 

3.4 

2.6 

2.8 

Steel  cut  oats 

0.19 

0.1 

Ground  oats 

0.24 

1.1 

1.35 

0.77 

1.32 

Shorts 

0.24 

1.5 

1.46 

2.38 

0.49 

1.6 

1.8 

2.74 

Bran 

0.24 

1,5 

1.46 

1.61 

0.49 

1.6 

1.8 

1.42 

Corn  meal 

0.24 

1.5 

1.46 

3,10 

3.97 

Meat  scraps 

0.24 

0,8 

1.14 

0.91 

0.24 

1.0 

1.1 

0.8 

Milk 

7.6 

17.0 

15.87 

31.7 

6.54 

30.6 

15.4 

. 50.5 

Charcoal 

0.08 

0.1 

0,10 

0.09' 

0.01 

0.021 

0.01 

0.02 

Grit 

0.1 

0.1 

0,08 

0.10 

0.06 

0.08 

0.04 

0.18 

Ground  bone 

0.08 

0.1 

0.06 

0.10 

0,015 

0.2 

0.1 

0.22 

Corn 

10:2 

7.77 

12.0 

5.2 

6.45 

Prepared  feed 

7.45 

7.0 

2.8 

Whole  oats 

1.89 

14.76 

Table  III  shows  the  consumption  of  the  different  feeds  per  bird  un- 
der four  different  divisions.  Under  the  heading  “chicks,”  the  feed 
used  by  each  chick  up  to  the  time  the  broilers  were  removed,  is  shown. 
Under  the  heading  “pullets,”  consumption  per  pullet  is  shown  during  the 
time  they  were  segregated  as  pullets.  These  amounts  added  to  those 
under  “chicks”  give  total  feeds  from  hatching  to  maturity.  The  cock- 
erels should  have  the  number  of  pounds  of  feed  under  the  “cockerel” 
column  added  to  “chicks”  to  show  feed  used  during  their  life  time.  The 
capons  theoretically  ate  as  much  as  the  cockerels  plus  what  is  shown 
under  the  heading  “capons.”  The  figures  are  given  to  show  difference 
in  consumption  of  individual  feeds  by  the  four  groups  in  the  experiments. 
The  two  experiments  differed  greatly  because  of  the  different  feeds  used. 


Fin.  5.  A sod-bound  orchard  is  an  ideal  place  for  rearing  chicks,  furnishing  cheap 
feed  and  shade  and  destroys  insects 


14 


Table  IV. — Weights  and  Gains  in  Pounds — Pullets 


Period 

Experiment  No.  1- 

-1916 

Experiment  No.  2- 

-1917 

Weight  at 
beginning 

Weight 

Gain 

Weight  at 
beginning 

Weight 

Gain 

Part  1 

0.085 

0.088 

1 

0.228 

0.188 

0.204 

0.121 

2 

0.46 

0.287, 

0.363 

0.159 

3 

0.917 

0.51 

0.663 

0,300 

4 

1.49 

0,52 

1.075 

0.412 

4 y. 

1.84 

0.35 

1.7191 

0.6441 

Part  2 

1.76 

1.57 

5 

2.08 

0.27 

6 

2.57 

0.581 

1.99 

0.42 

7 

3.0/7 

0.50 

2.7 

0.71 

8 

3.35 

0.28 

3.285 

0.585 

9 

3.54 

0.119 

3.60 

0.405 

10 

3.72 

0.18 

4.08 

0.30 

HI 

4.21 

0.49 

4.680 

0.609 

12 

4.9 

0.69 

5.11 

0.421 

18 

5.21 

0.31 

5.61 

0.5 

14 

5.56 

0.35 

5.78 

0.12 

1 In  Experiment  No.  2,  the  last  period  with  the  chicks  was  two  weeks  long  and  the 
fifth  period  is  shown  under  the  one  numbered  4% 


This  table  is  divided  into  two  parts,  the  first  running  from  the  day 
the  chicks  were  put  into  the  brooder  until  the  cockerels  were  removed  and 
the  second  running  from  the  end  of  the  first  period  until  the  pullets 
were  sold.  The  cockerels  were  sold  at  the  end  of  nine  weeks  in  Ex- 
periment No.  i,  and  at  the  end  of  io  weeks  in  Experiment  No.  2. 

The  gains  increased  rather  regularly  in  both  years  in  Part  i,  but  the 
total  weight  was  not  as  great  at  the  end  of  Part  i in  Experiment  No.  2 
as  in  Experiment  No.  i.  This  is  to  be  expected  when  the  lessened  con- 
sumption as  given  in  Table  II,  is  remembered. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  second  part,  the  pullet  weights  were  not  as 
great  as  the  average  weights  of  all  chicks  at  the  close  of  Part  i.  This 
is  due  to  the  heavier  weights  of  the  cockerels  holding  up  the  average. 
The  pullets  did  not  weigh  as  much  to  begin  with  in  Experiment  No.  2 
as  in  Experiment  No.  1,  but  they  weighed  slightly  more  at  the  close  of 
the  twenty-eighth  week.  The  gains  were  very  irregular,  there  seeming  to 
be  no  correlation  between  the  amount  of  feed  consumed  and  the  gains 
made.  The  apex  of  gains  in  1916  was  during  the  twenty-fourth  week  and  in 
1917  was  in  the  twenty-second  week,  after  which  time  the  gains  dropped 
off  until  in  Experiment  No.  2,  practically  no  gains  were  made  during  the 
last  two  weeks.  In  Experiment  No.  1,  about  half  the  birds,  and  in 
Experiment  No.  2,  slightly  over  half  were  laying  at  28  weeks.  The 
pullets  started  to  lay  about  the  twelfth  period  in  1916,  and  about  the 
eleventh  period  in  1917.  In  other  words,  the  birds  matured  about  two 
weeks  earlier  in  1917  than  in  1916,  but  no  reason  for  this  is  known.  The 
heavy  gains  in  the  twelfth  and  eleventh  periods  of  Experiments  No.  1 
and  2 respectively,  indicated  that  the  birds  would  soon  lay.  It  proves 
the  supposition  that  pullets  make  big  gains  in  weight  just  before  they 
commence  laying. 


i5 


Table  V. — Weights  and  Gains  in  Pounds — Cockerels 


Period 

Experiment  No.  1- 

-1916 

Experiment  No.  2- 

-1917 

Weight  at 
beginning 

Weight 

Gain 

Weight  at 
beginning 

Weight 

Gain 

Part  1 

0.085 

0.0183 

1, 

0.223 

0.138 

0.204 

0.121 

2 

0.46 

0.237 

0.368 

0.159 

3 

0.97 

0.51 

0.663 

0.3 

4 

1.49 

0.52 

1.075 

0.412 

4% 

1.84 

0.35 

1.7191 

0.6441 

Part  2 

2.02 

2.05 

5 

2.34 

0,32 

6 

3.17 

0.83 

2.55 

0.5 

7 

3.87 

0.7 

3.18 

0.63 

8 

4.29 

0.42 

3.82 

0.64 

9 

4.79 

0.5 

4.54 

0.72 

10 

5.45 

0.66 

5.00 

0.55 

11 

5.81 

0.36 

5.74 

0.65 

42 

6.4 

0.59 

6.46 

0.72 

1 In  Experiment  No.  2,  the  last  period  with  the  chicks  was  two  weeks  long  and  the 
fifth  period  is  shown  in  the  one  numbered  4 V2 


Part  i of  this  table  is  the  same  as  given  in  Table  IV.  At  the  begin- 
ning of  Part  2,  the  cockerel  weights  were  greater  than  the  average 
weights  of  all  chicks  at  the  close  of  Part  i.  The  cockerels  in  Experi- 
ment No.  i weighed  about  the  same  at  nine  weeks  as  they  did  at  io 
weeks  of  age  in  Experiment  No.  2,  but  the  weights  at  the  close  of  the 
twelfth  period,  when  they  were  sold,  were  practically  the  same.  The 
gains  were  irregular,  and  the  birds  in  Experiment  No.  2 never  equaled 
those  in  No.  1 until  the  twenty-fourth  week,  at  which  time  the  cocker- 
els weighed  over  a pound  more  than  the  pullets. 


Fig.  6.  The  com  field  is  an  ideal  place  for  growing  chicks  with  benefit  to  both  and 
little  damage  to  the  corn 


i6 


Tabee:  VI. — Weights  and  Gains  in  Pounds — Capons 


Period 

Experiment  No.  1- 

-1916 

Experiment  No.  2- 

-1917 

Weight  at 
beginning 

Weight 

Gain 

Weight  at 
beginning 

Weight 

Gain 

Part  1 

0.085 

0.083 

1 

0.223 

0.138 

0.204 

0.121 

2 

0.46 

0.237 

0.363 

0.159 

3 

0.97 

0,51 

0.663 

0.3 

4 

1.49 

0.52 

1.075 

0.412 

4% 

1.84 

0.35 

1.7191 

0.6441 

Part  2 

2.01 

2.05 

5 

2.18 

0.1:7 

6 

2,94 

0.76 

2.21 

0.16 

7 

3.69 

0.75 

2,88 

0.67 

8 

4.13 

0.44 

3.47 

0.59 

9 

4.67 

0.54 

4.14 

0.67 

10 

5.27 

0.60 

5.0 

0.86 

11 

5.69 

0.42 

5.5 

0.50 

12 

6.33 

0.64 

6.32 

0.82 

13 

6.76 

0.43 

6.72 

0.40 

M 

7.28 

0.52 

7.77 

1.05 

15 

7.74 

0.46 

7.77 

0.0 

16 

8.36 

0.61 

7.75 

-0.02 

17 

8.56 

0.21 

8,17 

0.42 

18 

8.97 

0.41 

8.5 

0.33 

19 

8.69 

-0.28 

7.79 

-0.71 

20 

9.5 

0.81 

9.09 

1.30 

2oy2 

9.91 

0.41 

9.37 

0.28 

1 In  Experiment  No.  2,  the  last  period  with  the  chicks  was  two  weeks  long  and  the 
fifth  period  is  shown  in  the  one  numbered  4% 


Part  i of  this  table  is  the  same  as  given  in  Table  IV.  At  the  begin- 
ning of  Part  2 the  average  weights  of  the  cockerels  to  be  caponized  were 
greater  than  the  average  weights  of  all  chicks  at  the  close  of  Part  i.  The 
capons  at  the  start  weighed  about  the  same  in  Experiment  No.  i as  in 
Experiment  No.  2,  although  they  were  one  week  younger.  They  did  not 
recover  from  the  effects  of  the  caponizing  immediately  but  in  Experi- 
ment No.  1 they  resumed  their  growth  in  about  a week.  In  Experiment 
No.  2 it  took  them  two  weeks  to  recover.  This  put  the  1917  chicks 
practically  two  weeks  behind  and  it  took  them  until  the  twelfth  period 
to  equal  the  other  lot.  While  the  gains  were  very  irregular  from  period 
to  period,  they  continued  in  1916  until  the  nineteenth  period,  when  for 
some  unknown  reason  there  was  a loss.  This  necessitated  putting  the 
birds  on  to  a sloppy  fattening  ration,  to  which  they  quickly  responded 
and  finished  out  in  nice  condition  at  the  end  of  41  week's,  weighing  prac- 
tically 10  pounds  each. 

In  Experiment  No.  2,  the  capons  made  a big  increase  in  weight  in 
the  fourteenth,  and  made  no  gains  in  the  fifteenth  period.  The  large 
gain  seemed  inconsistent  and  hard  to  understand,  but  the  lack  of  gain 
the  next  period  seemed  more  erratic.  The  weights  were  checked  and 
proved  to  be  correct.  The  capons  had  a large  range  of  clover,  and 
corn,  wheat  and  oats  for  grain.  During  the  sixteenth  period,  oats  were 


17 


fed  as  the  only  grain  and  again  the  birds  failed  to  gain.  In  the  seven- 
teenth period,  it  was  decided  that  the  mash  consumption  had  been  too 
low,  and  was  the  cause  of  the  lack  of  growth,  and  so  each  morning  a 
wet  mash  was  fed.  This  brought  the  birds  back  into  growth  and  they 
gained  0.42  pound  each.  In  the  eighteenth  period,  the  wet  mash  was 
discontinued  but  new  soft  corn  on  the  cob  was  fed  each  morning  in  ad- 
dition to  the  oats  in  the  hopper,  and  the  gains  continued.  In  the  nine- 
teenth period,  the  birds  would  not  eat  much  and  a large  loss  in  weight 
was  the  result.  Beginning  with  the  twentieth  period,  it  was  decided  that 
the  experiment  should  soon  close,  so  a fattening  mash  consisting  of  two 
pounds  corn  meal,  one  pound  ground  oats,  one  pound  shorts  and  eight 
pounds  of  buttermilk  was  fed  three  times  daily.  The  birds  responded 
well  and  finished  out  in  good  condition,  making  big  gains  and  weighing 
within  one-half  pound  as  much  as  the  capons  in  Experiment  No.  1.  The 
erratic  appetites  and  gains  can  not  be  clearly  understood. 


Fig:.  7.  Range  feed  hopper,  which  saves  labor  in  feeding  chicks  and  helps  insure 
growth.  Holds  a large  amount  of  feed 


i8 


Table)  VII. — The  Gain,  Amount  and  Cost  of  Feed  to  Produce  One 
Pound  of  Gain  Per  Period  (in  dollars) 


Chicks 


Period 

Gain 

Pounds  feed  per  pound  gain 

Cost  feed  per  pound  gain 

1916 

1917 

1916 

1917 

1916 

1917 

1 

0.138 

0.121 

2.18 

2,99 

0.066 

0.089 

2 

0.2817 

0.159 

2.65 

3.42 

0.07  , 

0.10 

3 

0.51 

0.3 

2.14 

3.0 

0.042 

0.074 

4 

0.52! 

0.412 

3.06 

3.28 

0.066 

0.081 

5 

0.62 

0.644 

3.12 

2.78 

0.066 

0.066 

Table)  Vila. — Pullets 


Period 

Gain 

Pounds  feed  per  pound  gain 

Cost  feed  per  pound  gain 

1916 

1917 

1916 

1917 

1916 

1917 

6 

0.581 

0.42 

4.46 

4.54 

0.086 

0.135 

7 

0.5 

0.71 

5.15 

2.88 

0.002 

0.088 

8 

0.28 

0,585 

7.68 

3.48 

0.165 

0.111 

9 

0.10 

0.405 

12.39 

5.01 

0.24 

0.16 

10 

0.18 

0.39' 

14.64 

5.7 

0.26 

0.187 

11 

0.49 

0.609 

6.98 

4.62 

0.12 

0.164 

12 

0.69 

0.421 

4.2 

7.42 

0.070 

0.261 

18 

0.31 

0.5 

9.51 

6.817 

0.18 

0.213 

14 

0.36 

0.12 

8.62 

22.85 

0.16 

0.711 

Table)  Vllb. — Cockerels  and  Capons 


Gain 

Pounds  feed  per  pound  gain 

Cost  feed  per  pound  gain 

Period 

Cockerels 

Capons 

1916 

1917 

1916 

1917 

1916 

1917 

1916 

1917 

5 

0.67 

0.52 

6 

0.88 

0.5 

0.76 

0.16 

3.00 

6.45 

0.067 

0.186 

7 

0.70 

0.63 

0.75 

0.07 

4.54 

3.75 

0.088 

0.109 

8 

0.42 

0.64 

0.44 

0,59 

6.11 

4.55 

0.12 

0.18 

9 

0.50 

0.72 

0.54 

0.67 

5.43 

3.36 

0.10 

0.10 

lO- 

0.66 

0.55 

0.6 

0.86 

5.52 

3.5 

0.10 

0.115 

ll 

0.36 

0.65 

0.42 

0.5 

7.51 

6.5 

0.13 

0.222 

12 

0.50- 

0.71 

0.64 

0.82 

6.94 

5.58 

0.11 

0.189 

Table  Vile. — Capons 


Period 

Gain 

Pounds  feed  per  pound  gain 

Cost  feed  per  pound  gain 

1916 

1917 

1916 

1917 

1916 

1917 

13 

0.48 

0.40 

8.10 

10.19 

0.16 

0.32 

14 

0.52 

1.05 

6.58 

4.71 

0.15 

0.14 

15 

0.46 

8.89 

no  gain 

0.18 

16 

0.61 

-0.02 

6.70 

loss 

0.14 

17 

0.21 

0.42 

10.22 

12.37 

0.41 

0.26 

18 

0.41 

0.88 

8.92 

15.75 

0.10 

0.37 

10 

-0.28 

-0.71 

loss 

loss 

20 

0.81 

1.30 

5.96 

4.24 

0.12 

0.11 

2oy2 

0.41 

0.28 

3.30 

10.32 

0.10 

0.26 

19 


The  gains  shown  in  Table  VII — Vila,  Vllb,  and  Vile  are  taken 
from  Tables  IV,  V,  and  VI.  The  workings  of  nature  are  seldom  in 
exact  order  and  so  the  feed  consumed  to  produce  one  pound  of  gain  is 
as  irregular  as  the  gains.  When  gains  are  low,  feed  consumption  prob- 
ably remaining  about  the  same,  the  amount  of  feed  to  produce  one  pound 
of  gain  is  high.  This  was  not  true  until  after  the  chicks  weighed  two 
pounds.  In  1917,  during  the  first  10  weeks  the  chicks  ate  and  gained 
less,  than  in  the  year  1916.  This  made  the  number  of  pounds  of  feed 
and  the  cost  thereof  amount  to  more  in  Experiment  No.  2.  There  be- 
ing no  uniformity  of  gain  one  year  with  another,  it  is  useless  to  com- 
pare them,  but  the  cost  is  uniformly  greater  during  the  second  year. 
This  was  largely  on  account  of  the  increased  cost  of  feed. 

The  Tables  Vila,  Vllb,  and  Vile  show  the  figures  for  the  pullets 
alone ; the  cockerels  and  capons  together  until  the  cockerels  were  sold ; 
and  the  capons  alone.  The  pullets  ate  more  feed  to  produce  one  pound 
of  gain  as  they  grew  older  and  the  cost  increased  with  the  consumption. 
The  cockerels  were  somewhat  erratic  in  their  feed  consumption  per 
pound  gain,  but  the  cost  kept  rather  uniform  in  Experiment  No.  1 and 
only  raised  suddenly  in  Experiment  No.  2,  when  the  grains  became  so 
expensive.  When  no  gain  was  made  with  the  capons,  no  cost  of  gain 
could  be  figured  for  that  period.  It  was  automatically  taken  care  of  in 
the  next  period. 


Table  VIII. — Cost  of  Raising  a Pullet — Gross 


Experiment 
No.  1 

1916 

Experiment 
No.  2 

1917 

First  period 

200  chicks 

250  chicks 

Cost.  of  baby  shirks 

$12.20 
36.04 
47.24 
3151.8 
$ 0.184 

$18.50 

50.58 
60.08 
406.8 
$ 0.17 

Raising  costs  ....... 

Total  cost 

Pounds  of  chicks 

Cost  per  pound  _ 

Cost  per  chick 

$ 0.247 

$ 0.202 

Second  period 

Pounds  of  pullets  left  from  first  period 

157.00 
$211.04 
48.1110' 
60.159 
484.5 
$ 0.142 

87 

$ 0.794 
327-48 
$ 0.146 
1.76 

5.56 

190.32 
$32.36 
91.385 
128.786 
682.7 
$ 0,181 

110 

$ 1.039 
492.38 
$ 0.166 
1.571 

5.78 

Cost  for  first  period 

Raising  cost,  second  period  _ _ _ _ 

Total  cost  _ 

Number  pounds  at  close 

Total  cost  per  pound 

Number  pullets  reared 

Cost  per  pullet 

Number  pounds  gained  this  period 

Raising  cost  per  pound  this  period 

Weight  at  9 weeks,  pounds 

Weight  at  24  weeks,  pounds 

1 Weight  at  10  weeks 


20 


The  gross  cost  of  raising  a pullet  is  one  of  the  main  objects  of  this 
experiment  and  in  Table  VIII  the  figures  are  divided  into  two  periods, 
the  first  running  from  the  day  the  chicks  were  hatched  until  the  culls 
and  males  were  sold,  and  the  second  running  from  the  end  of  period  i 
to  the  twenty-eighth  week.  In  the  first  period,  all  cost  items,  including 
cost  of  cockerels  were  charged,  except  the  cost  of  the  brooder.  The  cost 
is  greater  in  Experiment  No.  2 than  in  No.  1,  due  to  high  cost  of  feed, 
it  being  $0,247  and  $0-292  per  chick  in  1916  and  1917  respectively. 

The  number  of  pounds  of  pullets  left  from  the  first  period  after 
culling  was  charged  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  period  at  the  cost 
price  per  pound  of  period  1.  All  expenses  except  brooder  rental,  were 
charged  in  this  period  and  added  to  the  first  cost.  The  total  of  periods 
1 and  2,  divided  by  the  number  of  pounds  at  the  close  of  the  experiment, 
gave  a growing  cost  per  pound  of  $0,142  and  $0,181  for  the  years  1916 
and  1917.  The  number  of  pullets  reared  out  of  200  chicks  in  1916  was 
87  and  out  of  250  chicks  in  1917  was  119.  This  is  an  excellent  percent- 
age and  helps  to  reduce  the  cost  per  pullet.  The  gross  costs  per  pullet 
on  the  basis  of  pullets  only  were  $0,794  and  $1,039  and  the  weights  were 
5.56  pounds  and  5.73  pounds  for  the  years  1916  and  1917. 


Table:  IX. — Raising  Costs  of  Broilers — Gross 


Experiment 
No.  1 

1916 

Experiment 
No.  2 

1917 

Number  pounds  sold 

H94.6 

215.48 

Number  eoekerels 

79 

23 

86 

Number  mills 

29 

Raising  cost  per  pound 

$ 0.134 

160 

$ 0.17 

176.4 

Number  pounds  cockerels  sold 

Raising  cost — broilers 

$26,076 

21.44 

$36.63 

29.988 

Raising  cost — cockerels 

Selling  price — gross 

0.32 

0.35 

Table  IX  shows  the  cost  of  the  broilers  sold  the  ninth  and  tenth 
weeks.  During  both  years  there  were  some  culls  sold  with  the  cockerels. 
The  cockerels  and  culls  are  listed  separately  but  the  cost  is  lumped.  The 
gross  selling  price  should  be  reduced  two  cents  per  pound  for  express  and 
shrinkage,  but  this  still  leaves  a comfortable  margin  over  the  raising  cost. 


21 


Table)  X. — Raising  Costs  of  Cockerels  or  Roasters — Gross 


Experiment 
No.  1 

1916 

Experiment 
No.  2 

1917 

Pounds  of  broilers  left  from  first  period 

81.1 

88.2 

Number  broilers 

4)0 

43 

Cost  first  period 

$10.86 

162.3 

$14.99 

189.9 

Number  pounds  produced  second  period 

Raising  cost  second  period 

$19.63 

0.121 

$30.00 

0.158 

Raising  cost  second  period  per  pound 

Number  pounds  af,  elose 

243.4 

278.1 

Total  cost 

$30.49 

0.125 

$44.99 

0.161 

Total  cost  per  pound 

Selling  price — gross 

0.19 

0.24 

Number  roasters  reared  _ 

36 

43 

Cost  per  bird 

$ 0.80 

2.0'2 

$ 1.04 

2.05 1 

Weight  per  bird — 9 weeks — pounds 

Weight  per  bird — 24  weeks — pounds 

6.4 

6.46 

1 Experiment  No.  2 at  10  weeks 


Table  X shows  the  final  cost  of  the  roasters  reared,  considering  only 
the  number  saved  to  raise  as  roasters.  In  1916,  there  were  40  cock- 
erels to  start  with  and  two  died.  In  1917,  43  chicks  lived  throughout 
the  experiment.  The  cost  per  pound  was  slightly  less  during  this  part  of 
the  experiment  than  during  the  baby  chickhood,  thus  keeping  down  the 
total  cost  per  pound.  The  selling  prices  of  $0.19  and  $0.24  are  gross 
and  should  be  reduced  1.5  cents  to  pay  for  express  and  shrinkage,  leaving 
a fair  margin  over  the  cost.  The  total  cost  per  roaster  was  $0.80  and 
$1,064  and  the  final  weights  were  6.4  and  6.46  pounds  for  the  years 
1916  and  1917. 

Table:  XI. — Raising  Costs  of  Capons — Gross 


Experiment 
No.  1 

1916 

Experiment 
No.  2 
1917 

Pounds  of  capons  left  from  first  period 

76.7 

81.7 

39 

$13.89 

0.158 

246,7 

165.0 
$26.07 

39.96 

328.0 
114.21 
$ 0.36 

41.634 

Number  capons 

38. 

Cost  first  period 

$10.2)77 

0.12)1 

Raising  cost  second  period  per  pound 

Number  pounds  at  close  second  period 

221.7 

Number  pounds  produced  second  period 

146.0 

Raising  cost  second  period 

$1)7.54 

27.817 

Total  cost  first  and  second  periods 

Number  pounds  at  close  second  period 

32)7.3 

Number  pounds  produced  third  period 

105.6 

Raising  cost  third  period  per  pound 

$ 0.257 
27.153 

Raising  cost  third  period 

Total  cost  first,  second,  third  period 

54.97 

81.594 

91.84 

Total  income  for  capons 

81.82 

Total  profit  for  capons 

26,86 

10.25 
0.248 
2.05 2 
9.37 
$ 2.32 
0.04 
0.28 
2.62 

Total  cost  per  pound 

0.168 

Weight  per  bird — 9 weeks  (pounds) 

2.01 

Weight  per  bird — 41  weeks  (pounds) 

9.918 

Total  cost  per  bird  __ 

$ 1.66 

0.04 

Cost  of  caponizing  per  bird  ...  . 

Selling  cost  per  pound  (net) 

0.25 

Income  per  capon 

2,479 

1 F'our  birds  stolen  were  counted  out 
**10  weeks 


22 


Table  XI  gives  the  raising  costs  of  the  capons  to  41  weeks  of  age. 
In  Experiment  No.  1,  there  were  38  capons  to  start  with  and  five  died. 
In  Experiment  No.  2,  there  were  39  capons  to  start  with  and  four  were 
stolen.  The  first  period  as  used  in  the  table,  gives  the  raising  costs  from 
hatching  time  to  the  time  the  cockerels  were  removed  as  broilers;  the 
second  period  was  the  time  the  cockerels  and  capons  were  together ; and 
the  third  period  was  the  time  the  capons  were  alone.  The  number  of 
pounds  of  capons  after  caponizing  was  multiplied  by  the  raising  cost  per 
pound  to  date,  giving  cost  of  capons  on  day  of  caponizing.  In  Experi- 
ment No.  2,  four  capons  were  stolen  and  were  recorded  as  being  removed 
from  the  experiment  at  the  beginning  of  that  period  and  gains  figured  ac- 
cordingly. In  the  final  profit,  these  birds  lost  with  those  that  died,  helped 
to  reduce  the  income  and  consequent  profit.  The  raising  cost  per  pound 
was  much  greater  in  the  third  period  than  during  the  second,  as  gains 
were  slower.  The  final  weights  of  the  capons  were  9.91  and  9.37  pounds 
each,  grown  at  a cost  of  $0,168  and  $0,248  per  pound  or  $1.66  and  $2.32 
per  bird.  They  were  sold  at  $0.25  and  $0.28  per  pound  in  the  two  years, 
realizing  $2.47  and  $2.62  each.  The  total  profit  was  $26.85  in  Experi- 
ment No.  1 and  $10.25  in  Experiment  No.  2.  The  capons  were  not  as 
profitable  in  1917  as  in  1916,  because  feed  was  higher  and  selling  prices 
did  not  quite  keep  up  in  proportion. 


Table  XII. — Raising  Cost  of  Pullets — Net 


Experiment 
No.  1 

1916 

Experiment 
No.  2 

1917 

Number  of  chicks  to  start 

200 

250 

Number  of  pullets  at  end 

87 

1)9 

Number  chicks  marketed 

102 

115 

Total  cost  of  hatching 

$12.20 

35.04 

$18.50 

50.53 

Raising  cost  first  period 

Raising  cost  second  period 

48.119 

91.38 

Interest  and  depreciation  on  brooder 

5.00 

5.00 

Total  cost 

100.369 

166.41 

Tricorne  chicks  sold  (net,) 

58.38 

71.108 

Income  eggs  sold 

4.32 

10.807 

Total  income 

62.70 

82.005 

Total  net  cost 

Cost  per  pullet  reared  (net) 

37.659 

0.432 

83.405 

0.70 

Cost  per  pullet,  (gross) 

1.153 

1.39 

Weight  per  pullet  at  end  (pounds) 

5.56 

5.73 

Table  XII  gives  the  final  and  net  cost  of  rearing  a pullet.  It  is 
figured  on  the  basis*  of  the  actual  number  of  pullets  reared,  they  paying 
for  all  expenses  and  mortality.  The  cost  of  hatching  is  added  to  the 
cost  to  time  of  caponizing  and  to  the  cost  after  separation,  along  with 
interest  and  depreciation  on  the  brooder.  From  this  is  subtracted  the 
income  from  sale  of  males  and  eggs  laid,  leaving  the  net  costs  of  $37.66 
and  $83.40  for  the  two  experiments.  These  divided  by  the  number  of 
pullets  reared  gives  $0.43  and  $0.70  as  the  actual  net  cost  of  rearing 
White  Plymouth  Rock  pullets  in  1916  and  1917.  Neither  of  these  costs 


23 


is  abnormally  high  although  it  is  greater  in  1917.  Sale  prices  of  pullets 
were  higher  in  1917  than  in  1916  and  should  take  care  of  the  increased 
cost. 


Table:  XIII. — Influence  of  Time  of  Selling  on  Profit 


Experiment  No.  1—1916 

Experiment  No.  2—1917 

Week 

Weight 

Weight 

cockerels 

Price 

Income 

Profit 

cockerels 

Price 

Income 

Profit 

in  pounds 

cents 

in  pounds 

cents 

9 

81.1 

$0.32 

$25.95 

$15.00 

10 

93.9 

0.30 

28.17 

16.27 

88.2 

$0.35 

$30.87 

$15.88 

12 

127.1 

0.29 

36.85 

21.38 

• 100.8 

0.33 

36.23 

17.56 

14 

154.8 

0.27 

41.70 

23.33 

137.1 

0.28 

38.38 

16.43 

16 

171.9 

0.25 

42.97 

22.15 

164.6 

0.28 

42.70 

17.10 

16 

191.8 

0.23 

44.11 

20.70 

195.4 

0.25 

48.85 

10.99 

20 

218.0 

0.22 

47.96 

21.58 

219.1 

0.24 

52.58 

20.81 

22 

226.6 

0.20 

45.32 

17.32 

247.2 

0.24 

50.32 

20.53 

24 

243.4 

0.10 

46.24 

16.82 

278.1 

0.24 

66.74 

21.75 

Table  XIII  shows  the  relative  prices,  incomes  and  profits  to  be  ex- 
pected from  selling  young  cockerels  at  different  ages  and  times  of  the 
year.  The  year  1916  was  a rather  normal  one  and  prices  decreased  regu- 
larly from  May  to  October.  Even  with  the  increase  in  weights  as  the 
males  grew  older,  the  price  dropped  so  rapidly  that  there  was  nothing 
to  be  gained  by  holding  males  until  fall.  The  greatest  profit  in  Experi- 
ment No.  1 was  during  the  fourteenth  week.  In  1917,  prices  were  higher 
and  did  not  drop  as  they  usually  do  during  August  and  September;  the 
big  drop  came  later  than  usual  after  these  males  were  sold.  In  Experi- 
ment No.  2 the  most  profitable  period  was  at  24  weeks,  but  the  differ- 
ence between  that  time  and  six  weeks  earlier  was  negligible.  The  differ- 
ences between  10  weeks  and  14  weeks  were  relatively  small.  Fortunately 
the  mortality  was  low  with  the  cockerels  in  these  experiments.  The 
longer  the  birds  are  kept,  the  greater  the  chances  of  loss  and  if  the  mar- 
gins of  profit  are  not  large  it  may  not  pay  to  hold  males  after  they  be- 
come broiler  size.  If  feed  is  cheap  and  sale  prices  high,  it  will  pay  to 
hold,  but  not  under  other  conditions. 

CONCLUSIONS 

None  of  the  data  contained  in  the  foregoing  discussions  are  abso- 
lute but  they  are  indicative.  Any  poultryman  rearing  Plymouth  Rocks, 
Wyandottes,  or  Rhode  Island  Reds  could  take  the  amount  of  feed  con- 
sumed by  the  birds  in  this  experiment,  multiply  it  by  the  cost  of  feeds 
in  his  locality,  and  easily  obtain  a fair  estimate  of  what  it  would  cost  to 
feed  his  birds  during  any  period  of  growth.  He  could  put  his  cost 
charges  in  place  of  those  submitted  and  quickly  figure  the  cost  of 
hatching  a chick.  In  other  words,  these  figures  will  aid  one  in  working 
out  his  own  problems,  by  furnishing  weights  and  amounts  that  can  be 
applied  to  any  local  condition.  With  feed  prices  so  variable,  erratic  and 
impossible  of  forecasting,  no  definite  conclusions  as  to  profits  to  be  ob- 
tained in  raising  chickens  can  be  worked  out.  The  two  years,  1916  and 
1917,  had  such  different  feed  and  sale  prices  that  they  must  really  be 
considered  separately.  It  is  the  amounts  and  weights  that  are  the  most 
indicative  and  definite. 


PURDUE  UNIVERSITY 

Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


Bulletin  No.  215 
May,  1918 


COMMERCIAL  FERTILIZERS 


Published  by  the  Station: 
LAFAYETTE,  INDIANA 


PURDUE  UNIVERSITY  AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 


BOARD  OP  CONTROL 
Joseph  D.  Oliver,  President,  South  Bend 


Fay  S.  Chandler, Indianapolis 

Charles  Downing  Greenfield 

John  A.  Hillenbrand - -Batesvuie 

Cyrus  M.  HoBB^""""p-E';- ■sTONE7  A.rM.tepL  D President  of  the  University 


Warren  T.  McCray Kentland 

James  W.  Noel Indianapolis 

Andrew  E.  Reynolds Crawfordsville 

William  V.  Stuart LaFayette 


ADVISORY  COMMITTEE 
(Under  Legislative  Act  of  1909) 


John  G.  Brown,  Monon 

State  Live  Stock  Association 


D.  B.  Johnson,  Mooresville 

State  Dairy  Association 

tt  t?  Hone  D-  F-  Maish,  Frankort : ----- 

U.  R.  ASSOCIATION  STATE  CORN  GROWERS'  ASSOCIATION 

D F J heacock,  Salem Indiana  Horticultural  Society 


ADMINISTRATION 
Charles  G.  Woodbury,  M.  S.,  Director 
Harry  J.  Reed.... Assistant  to  the  Director 


Nellie  Tracy Administrative  Assistant 

Mary  K.  Bloom Bookkeeper 


AGRICULTURAL  EXTENSION 
George  I.  Christie,  B.  S.  A.,  Superintendent 

Thomas  A.  Coleman Ass’t  State  Leader 

Field  Studies  and  Demonstrations 

George  M.  Frier,  B.  S.  A Associate  in 

Charge  of  Short  Courses  and  Exhibits 
Mabel  L.  HARLAN-Ass’t  in  Agricultural  Extension 


ANIMAL  HUSBANDRY 
John  H.  Skinner,  B.  S.,  Chief 


Chester  G.  Starr,  B.  S.  A — — r 

Acting  Associate  in  Animal  Husbandry 

Herbert  E.  McCartney,  B.  S.  A - - 

Ass’t  in  Animal  Husbandry  Extension 


BOTANY 

Herbert  S.  Jackson,  A.  B.,  Chief 

George  N.  Hoffer,  M.  S Associate  in  Botany 

Luna  E Allison,  B.  S Assistant  in  Botany 

Edwin  B.  Mains,  Ph.  D Assistant  in  Botany 

Harry  R.  Rosen,  M.  S.,  Assistant  in  Rust  Work 

Grace  O.  Wineland,  A.  B.,  M.  S ------- 

Assistant  m Botany 


DAIRY  HUSBANDRY 
Ralph  E.  Caldwell,  B.  S.,  Acting  Chief 


Howard  W.  Gregory,  B.  S...-.- .... 

Associate  in  Dairy  Manufactures 


George  Spitzer,  Ph.  G.,  B.  S. 

Associate  in  Dairy  Chemistry 


Harry  M.  Weeter,  M.  S - ............. 

Associate  in  Dairy  Bacteriology 

Turner  H.  Broughton,  B.  S - »; 

Assistant  in  Creamery  Inspection 

William  F.  Epple,  Ph.  G --- 

Assistant  in  Dairy  Chemistry 

Hubert  W.  Fleisher,  B.  S.  A 

Assistant  in  Creamery  Inspection 


ENTOMOLOGY 
James  Troop,  M.  S..  Chief 
Preston  W.  Mason,  B.  S.,  Ass’t  in  Entomology 


HORTICULTURE 
Laurenz  Greene,  M.  S.  A.,  Chief 
Harry  A.  Noyes,  M.  S Associate  in 


Horticultural  Chemistry  and  Bacteriology 
Joseph  Oskamp,  B.  S..  Associate  in  Pomology 

Walter  A.  Huelson,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Horticulture 


POULTRY  HUSBANDRY 
Allen  G.  Philips,  B.  S.  A.,  Chief 

Dwight  C.  Kennard,  Ph.  C.,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Husbandry 

Lewis  H.  Schwartz,  B.  S.  A 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Husbandry 


SOILS  AND  CROPS 
Alfred  T.  Wiancko,  B.  S.  A.,  Chief 

Martin  L.  Fisher,  M.  S - 

Assistant  Chief  in  Soils  and  Crops 

Samuel  D.  Conner,  M.  S 

Associate  Chemist  in  Soils  and  Crops 

Clinton  O.  Cromer,  B.  S Associate  in  Crop: 

Sadocie  C.  Jones,  M.  S Associate  in  Soil: 

Ernest  N.  Fergus,  M.  Sc 

Assistant  in  Soils  and  Crop: 


STATE  CHEMIST 
Edward  G.  Proulx,  M.  S. A. Acting  State  Chemisi 
Reuben  O.  Bitler,  B.  S.1 2.— Deputy  State  Chemisi 

Paul  B.  Curtis,  B.  S.2 .Deputy  State  Chemis 

Omar  W.  Ford,  A.  B.2 Deputy  State  Chemisi 

Mary  J.  Minton,  B.  S.2 Assistan 

Microscopist  State  Chemist’s  Departmenl 
Herman  J.  Nimitz,  B..  SA. Deputy  State  Chemisr 
J.  Howard  Roop,  B.  SA— Deputy  State  Chemisi 

Samuel  F.  Thornton,  B.  S.2 

Deputy  State  Chemisi 

Otis  S.  Roberts,  B.  S.2 

Chief  Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Departmen 

Glen  G.  Carter,  B.  S.2 

Inspector  ^tate  Chemist’s  Departmen 

Benjamin  F.  Catherwood2 

Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Departmen 

William  B.  Tiedt2 - 

Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Departmen 


VETERINARY  SCIENCE 
Robert  A.  Craig,  D.  V.  M.,  Chief 
David  B.  Clark,  D.  M.  C. .. Associate  Veterinariai 

Lawrence  C.  Kigin,  D.  V.  M 

Associate  Veterinariai 

Rex  A.  Whiting,  D.  V.  M 

Associate  in  Animal  Patholog 

Carl  H.  Clink,  B.  S Ass’t  in  Serum  Productio: 

Leo  P.  Doyle,  B.  S Ass’t  in  Animal  Patholog 

Leslie  R.  George,  B.  S - 

Assistant  in  Animal  Patholog 
Fred  L.  Walkey,  D.  V.  M Ass’t  Veterinaria 


Raymond  A.  Nehf,  B.  S.  A 

Assistant  in  Horticulture 


DETAILED  BY  U.  S.  DEPARTMENT  OF 
AGRICULTURE 

Cereal  and  Forage  Crop  Insect  Investigation 
John  J.  Davis,  B.  S..  Entomological 
Assistant  in  Charge 

John  M.  Aldrich,  Ph.  D..  Entomological  Assistai 

Walter  H.  Larrimer,  B.  S Scientific  Assistar. 

Dean  A.  Ricker.  B.  S Scientific  Assistan 

Chester  F.  Turner,  B.  S Scientific  Assistan 

Seed  Testing 

Anna  M.  Lute,  M.  A Seed  Analy 


1 Tn  charge  of  Fertilizer  and  Feeding  Stuff  Control 

2 Connected  with  Fertilizer  and  Feeding  Stuff  Control 


COMMERCIAL  FERTILIZERS 

E.  G.  Prouex 

R.  B.  Deemer1  R.  O.  Bitler  S.  F.  Thornton  O.  W.  Ford 

O.  S.  Roberts 

The  Indiana  Fertilizer  Control  law  was  enacted  by  the  state  legis- 
lature some  37  years  ago,  this  state  being  one  of  the  pioneers  in  safe- 
guarding the  purchasers  as  well  as  the  honest  manufacturers  in  the  han- 
dling and  consumption  of  fertilizer. 

Two  important  changes  have  since  been  made  in  this  law ; an  amend- 
ment in  1899,  to  provide  for  field  inspection^  and  another  amendment  in 
1901,  to  eliminate  the  useless  analysis  of  samples  submitted  by  the 
manufacturer,  with  the  result,  that  at  present  the  Indiana  Fertilizer  law  is 
one  of  the  simplest  and  most  effective  protective  measures  in  the  statutes 
of  any  state. 

Many  new  agents  and  consumers  when  interviewed  by  inspectors  of 
the  State  Chemist’s  Department,  show  that  they  have  failed  to  familiarize 
themselves  with  the  requirements  of  the  fertilizer  law  or  the  benefits  to 
be  derived  from  its  enforcement. 

Since  the  full  text  of  the  Indiana  Fertilizer  law  and  the  working 
regulations  of  the  State  Chemist’s  Department  have  been  published  in 
recent  bulletins,  it  is  deemed  unnecessary  to  reprint  them  in  full  at  this 
time.  The  full  text  of  the  law  with  explanations  and  rulings  will  be  for- 
warded without  cost  upon  request.  In  order  that  manufacturers,  agents, 
dealers,  distributers  and  consumers  may  familiarize  themselves  with  the 
essential  provisions  and  the  benefits  to  be  derived  from  their  enforcement, 
the  mam  points  of  the  law  governing  the  sale  of  materials  for  mammal 
purposes  in  Indiana  are  summarized  herewith. 

MANUFACTURERS 

Proper  certificates  of  registration  for  each  brand,  accompanied  by 
fees  and  an  order  for  State  Chemist’s  labels  must  be  submitted  before  any 
mammal  substance,  except  barnyard  manure,  marl,  lime,  wood  ashes  and 
plaster,  is  offered,  exposed  for  sale,  sold  or  distributed  in  the  State  A 
change  in  guarantee  can  be  made  only  by  a distinctive  change  in  the 
name  of  the  brand,  as  the  registration  of  a brand  is  permanent  and  is 
not  subject  to  withdrawal  or  change.  Annual  filing  of  certificates  is  not 
required. 

State  Chemist  s labels  must  be  attached  at  the  time  of  shipment,  to 
ail  packages  of  200  pounds  or  fraction,  including  sample  bottles.  Subse- 
quent delivery  of  labels,  after  making  unlabeled  shipments,  does  not  meet 
the  requirements  of  the  law  and  makes  the  purchaser  liable  to  prosecu- 
ion.  n the  case  of  bulk  sales,  labels  must  be  furnished  with  each  200 
pounds  or  fraction.  The  attached  State  Chemist’s  labels  fix  the  legal 
standard  for  the  shipment  and  each  plant  food  contained  therein  should 
equal  or  exceed  in  every  particular  the  guarantee  on  the  State  Chemist’s 


1 Resigned  January  31,  1913 


4 


Ruling  12  A.  Brands  registered  on  forms  1902  must  be  free  from 
acidulated  phosphates  and  those  registered  under  names  indicating  the 
use  of  animal  by-products  only,  i.  e.,  raw  bone,  ground  bone,  steamed 
bone,  tankage,  animal  bone  manure,  bone  and  potash,  bone  and  potash 
mixture,  etc.,  must  be  free  from  acidulated  materials,  ammonium  sulphate, 
nitrate  of  soda,  rock  phosphate,  lime,  all  fillers,  and  contain  animal  sources 
of  nitrogen  and  phosphoric  acid  only. 

There  still  seem  to  be  a few  manufacturers  who  have  not  complied 
with  this  ruling  and  in  order  that  further  misunderstanding  may  be 
avoided,  those  registering  or  desiring  to  register  materials  for  sale  under 
the  fertilizer  law  should  note  that  shipments  made  under  the  name  of  raw 
bone,  steamed  bone,  ground  bone,  etc.,  must  consist  of  animal  by-products 
only,  and  that  the  use  of  nitrate  of  soda,  ammonium  sulphate,  rock  phos- 
phate, acid  phosphate,  gypsum,  lime,  salt,  any  other  filler  or  material 
which  is  not  an  unacidulated  animal  by-product  is  prohibited  by  such  rul- 
ing, violation  of  which,  will  necessarily  lead  to  the  cancellation  of  registra- 
tions of  any  such  brands.  However,  reinforcing  agents  or  fillers  may  be 
used  if  desired  when  offered  for  registration  under  names  which  do  not 
indicate  the  presence  of  animal  by-products  only. 

Persons  or  firms  wishing  to  register  fertilizer  for  sale  in  this  state 
will  be  furnished  the  full  text  of  the  law  and  the  working  regulations  of 
the  State  Chemist's  Department  upon  request. 

AGENTS,  DEALERS,  DISTRIBUTERS 

Persons  offering,  selling  or  distributing  fertilizer  in  Indiana  should 
secure  a copy  of  the  law  from  the  State  Chemist  and  familiarize  them- 
selves with  its  provisions.  They  should  represent  companies  with  good 
records  of  inspection  and  require  of  the  companies  a clause  in  the  con- 
tract or  supplementary  agreement  guaranteeing  them  from  loss  for  any 
penalties  which  may  be  assessed,  due  to  the  failure  on  the  part  of  the 
company  represented  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  law. 

The  Indiana  Fertilizer  law  recognizes  only  the  State  Chemist’s  labels 
bearing  the  fac  simile  signature  of  the  State  Chemist  (see  reproduction, 
page  6.)  Do  not  accept,  offer  or  expose  for  sale,  sell,  deliver,  distribute 
or  have  in  your  possession  any  sample,  package  or  any  quantity  of  any 
commercial  fertilizer  which  does  not  have  attached  to  the  packages  or 
available  for  bulk  shipments,  the  State  Chemist’s  label  for  each  200  pounds 
or  fraction.  Labels  must  be  attached  to  the  packages  of  fertilizer  or  ac- 
company bulk  sales  at  the  time  of  delivery.  The  delivery  of  fertilizer  with 
subsequent  delivery  of  labels  on  the  plea  of  oversight,  hurry,  accommo- 
dation, etc.,  cannot  be  accepted  as  an  excuse  for  such  violations.  A prompt 
report  of  all  such  unlabeled  sales  will  be  made  to  the  prosecuting  attorney. 
The  State  Chemist’s  label  is  always  printed  and  any  alterations  thereon 
constitutes  a violation  of  the  law.  Therefore,  do  not  accept  any  sample, 
package  or  quantity  of  fertilizer  with  State  Chemist’s  labels  showing 
alterations. 

When  the  inspection  report  of  any  sample  in  your  possession  is  ac- 
companied by  the  advice  that  shipment  be  withdrawn  from  sale  on  account 
of  deficiencies,  it  should  be  removed  promptly  and  the  amount  and  date 


5 


of  withdrawal  reported  to  the  State  Chemist.  Failure  to  comply  with  such 
advice  will  necessitate  a report  to  the  prosecuting  attorney  for  wilful 
violation. 

Manufacturers  and  their  representatives  frequently  claim  that  a 
deficiency  in  a certain  plant  food  is  compensated  in  value  by  the  excess 
in  another  plant  food.  Based  on  this  claim,  purchase  of  fertilizer  would 
become  merely  a contract  for  so  many  dollars  worth  of  plant  food  without 
regard  to  kind  or  quantity.  Since  each  of  the  plant  foods,  nitrogen,  pot- 
ash and  available  phosphoric  acid  has  a certain  function,  peculiar  to  itself, 
to  perform  in  plant  production  and  cannot  replace  the  other,  such  a claim 
is  illogical.  It  is  essential  that  the  particular  plant  food  desired  and  pur- 
chased he  secured,  and  not  an  equal  money  value  of  another  plant  food 
if  a profitable  and  economical  use  of  commercial  fertilizer  is  made. 

Comparative  values  are  a means  of  comparing  similar  brands  but 
should  be  used  only  for  such  purposes,  and  care  should  be  taken  to 
consider  the  method  by  which  the  values  are  derived.  In  many 
cases,  through  the  use  of  untreated  rock  phosphate  as  a makeweight,  it 
will  be  found  that  while  on  the  basis  of  total  valuation  one  brand  may 
show  much  higher  than  another,  when  compared  on  the  basis  of  the  value 
of  the  nitrogen,  potash  and  available  phosphoric  acid  present,  the  excess 
value  of  one  may  be  due  to  a large  excess  of  insoluble  phosphoric  acid. 

Local  agents  are  directly  responsible  for  the  fertilizer  they  ofifer  for 
sale  and  should  be  careful  to  keep  the  fertilizer  in  a clean  and  water-proof 
building.  Different  brands  should  be  kept  in  separate  piles  to  prevent 
mixing  if  the  bags  are  damaged.  If  labels  become  detached,  secure  an 
additional  supply.  When  resacking,  take  every  precaution  to  prevent  mix- 
ing of  brands  or  the  addition  of  foreign  material.  Attach  State  Chem- 
ist’s labels  as  required  by  law.  Do  not  guess  at  the  composition  of  brands 
that  have  become  mixed,  but  write  the  facts  to  the  State  Chemist  before 
offering  it  for  sale.  A reduction  in  price  will  not  excuse  deficiencies  or 
failure  to  attach  labels. 

If  shortweight  shipments  are  suspected,  notify  the  State  Chemist  at 
once  and  do  not  accept  them  until  an  investigation  has  been  made  by  an 
official  inspector. 

The  satisfying  of  plant  food  needs  according  to  the  special  soil  and 
crop  requirements,  together  with  proper  cultivation  and  the  application 
of  other  principles  of  good  farming  and  not  the  application  of  so  many 
dollars  worth  of  fertilizer  without  regard  to  kind  or  quality,  are  the  es- 
sentials of  maximum  crop  production. 

CONSUMERS 

Through  observation,  experiment,  and  consultation  with  the  Soils 
and  Crops  Department  of  the  Experiment  Station,  determine  the  plant 
food  required  by  your  soil  to  produce  profitable  results  and  purchase  on 
the  basis  of  the  price  of  the  ingredient  or  ingredients  desired  and  not  on 
the  filler  used  or  the  price  per  ton.  High  grade  fertilizers,  while  more 
costly  per  ton,  almost  without  exception  furnish  plant  food  at  a less  cost 
per  pound  and  from  more  valuable  sources  than  lower  grade  and  cheaper 
per  ton  fertilizers. 


6 


Do  not  accept  fertilizer  without  State  Chemist’s  labels  attached  to 
packages  or  accompanying  bulk  sales,  (see  reproduction,  page  6).  The 
printed  guarantees  should  agree  with  those  on  sample  bottles  or  in  con- 
tract at  the  time  of  purchase.  The  law  requires  that  the  person  or  per- 
sons selling  the  fertilizer  furnish  the  amounts  of  plant  food  guaranteed 
on  the  State  Chemist’s  labels  accompanying  the  shipment;  hence  it  is 
essential  if  you  purchase  fertilizer  guaranteed  on  the  State  Chemist’s  label 
to  contain  1.6  per  cent,  nitrogen,  2.0  per  cent,  potash  soluble  in  water  and 

8.0  per  cent,  available  phosphoric  acid  that  the  official  labels  contain  this 
guarantee  and  no  other. 

Do  not  purchase  resacked  fertilizer  at  a bargain  or  under  any  cir- 
cumstances, unless  certain  that  it  has  been  stored  in  such  a manner  as 
to  prevent  deterioration  and  bears  official  labels  showing  composition 
desired.  The  furnishing  of  proper  plant  food  in  amounts  needed  by  the 
soil  and  crop,  together  with  proper  methods  of  cultivation  and  cropping, 
and  not  bargain  sales,  are  the  things  needed  to  produce  profitable  results 
on  deficient  or  unproductive  soils. 

Cooperate  with  this  department  by  purchasing  from  companies  whose 
records  of  inspection  show  they  are  maintaining  their  guarantees  and  by 
notifying  at  once  the  prosecuting  attorney  of  your  district  when  reports 
are  received  showing  that  fertilizer  purchased  does  not  meet  the  require- 
ments of  the  law. 

THE  STATE  CHEMIST’S  LABEL 
ACCEPT  NO  OTHER 


No.  6010 

JOHN  DOE  & COMPANY, 

of  Columbus,  Ohio, 

Guarantee  this 

SNOWFLAKE  FERTILIZER 

to  contain  not  less  than 
2.4  per  cent,  of  total  nitrogen,  (N), 

10.0  per  cent,  of  potash,  (K2O),  soluble  in 
water, 

8.0  per  cent,  of  soluble  and  reverted 

phosphoric  acid,  (P2O6),  and 

1.0  per  cent,  of  insoluble  phosphor1' c acid, 

(P205). 


Purdue  University 
Agricultural 
Experiment  Station, 
LaFayette,  Indiana. 


Acting  State  Chemist 


7 


Inspectors  annually  report  many  agents  and  consumers  who  seem  to 
be  unacquainted  with  the  State  Chemist’s  label  and  its  functions,  hence 
the  reproduction  on  page  6.  It  fixes  the  legal  guarantee  for  the  fertilizer  to 
which  it  is  attached  or  which  it  accompanies,  and  is  the  only  label  recog- 
nized under  the  Indiana  Fertilizer  law. 

It  is  the  guarantee  of  the  manufacturer  and  not  of  the  State  Chemist 
as  to  the  analysis  of  the  fertilizer.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  State  Chemist 
to  see  that  the  manufacturer  lives  up  to  his  guarantee.  The  law  thus 
protects  both  the  consumer  and  the  honest  manufacturer  and  furnishes  a 
foundation  for  the  accurate  and  intelligent  use  of  fertilizer  to  increase 
crop  production. 

HOW  TO  USE  ANNUAL  REPORTS 

Purchasers,  agents  and  dealers  will  derive  the  greatest  value  from  the 
annual  fertilizer  bulletins  by  following  the  suggestions  offered : 

Determine  the  formula  you  wish  to  purchase. 

Consult  Table  VIII  to  ascertain  the  manufacturers  having  fertilizers 
of  the  desired  composition  registered  for  sale. 

Consult  Tables  II,  III  and  IV  to  ascertain  the  inspection  records  of 
manufacturers  selected  from  Table  VIII. 

If  details  of  the  inspection  of  any  particular  brands  are  desired,  con- 
sult Table  VI  and  for  additional  information  write  to  the  State  Chemist. 

Purchase  of  manufacturers  whose  records  of  inspection  are  such  as 
to  justify  the  belief  that  they  will  deliver  fertilizer  as  guaranteed. 

The  index  to  each  report  is  so  arranged  as  to  enable  the  preceding 
suggestions  to  be  followed  with  a minimum  expenditure  of  time  and  labor. 

ADMINISTRATION 

The  administration  of  the  Indiana  Fertilizer  law  is  in  charge  of  the 
State  Chemist,  who  is  assisted  in  carrying  out  the  provisions  of  the  law 
by  a staff  of  deputies  and  inspectors.  The  latter  are  on  the  road  each 
working  day,  collecting  samples  of  fertilizers  and  feeding  stuffs  which  are 
forwarded  to  the  laboratory  where  they  are  analyzed  by  the  deputies. 

The  revenue  from  the  sale  of  State  Chemist’s  labels  is  used  to  carry 
on  the  work  of  inspection.  All  fees  should  be  made  payable  to  the  State 
Chemist.  The  accounts  of  the  Department,  including  all  receipts  and 
expenditures,  are  audited  at  intervals  by  the  State  Board  of  Accountants. 

The  large  number  of  shipments  into  the  State  makes  it  impossible  to 
obtain  a sample  from  each  shipment,  nor  is  this  necessary  to  secure  ade- 
quate inspection  and  protection.  The  inspectors  are  instructed  to  secure 
two  samples  of  each  brand  in  the  spring  and  fall  in  different  parts  of  the 
State,  and  in  the  case  of  brands  having  large  sales  and  companies  with 
poor  records  of  inspection,  the  number  is  increased  so  as  to  give  additional 
assurance  that  the  results  of  the  inspection  are  representative  of  the  fer- 
tilizer sold  in  the  State  each  year.  The  inspection  of  1917  shows  that  one 
sample  was  secured  for  each  141  tons  and  one  sample  analyzed  for  each 
142  tons  sold  in  the  State.  Requests  for  special  inspection  are  almost  in- 
variably complied  with. 

The  only  samples  analyzed  are  those  taken  by  our  regular  inspectors 
from  goods  properly  labeled  on  the  open  market.  Do  not  forward  samples 


8 


for  analysis,  but  write  to  the  State  Chemist  stating  the  manufacturer, 
brand,  official  number  (which  is  always  at  the  top  of  the  official  label), 
amount  of  fertilizer  on  hand  and  any  special  reason  for  desiring  the  in- 
spection. If  the  amount  on  hand  is  sufficient  to  give  a representative 
sample  and  a number  of  samples  of  the  same  brand  or  brands  has  not 
already  been  secured,  an  inspector  will  be  sent  to  take  an  official  sample 
without  expense  to  the  person  desiring  the  inspection. 

The  rule  that  only  samples  secured  by  inspectors  of  the  Department 
will  be  analyzed,  must  be  rigidly  adhered  to  for  the  following  reasons: 
i — the  analysis  of  a sample  of  fertilizer  is  of  value  only  when  drawn  in 
such  a manner  as  to  be  representative  of  the  entire  shipment.  Such  a 
representative  sample  can  only  be  taken  by  persons  with  special  training, 
using  a sampling  tube  which  takes  a full  core  of  the  entire  length  of 
each  package  sampled ; 2 — representative  samples  are  the  only  ones  whose 
legality  can  be  sustained  in  the  courts ; 3 — the  only  funds  available  for  the 
work  of  inspection  are  those  received  from  the  sale  of  labels;  therefore 
the  number  of  samples  which  can  be  analyzed  is  limited  by  the  revenue 
and  the  staff  available. 

All  samples  received  from  the  inspectors  are  analyzed  and  the  results 
reported  and  published  unless  error  in  connection  with  the  taking  of  same 
by  an  employee  of  the  Department  can  be  shown.  TJie  inspection  samples 
are  analyzed  in  the  order  in  which  they  are  received  at  the  laboratory  and 
by  what  is  known  as  the  blind  system : i.  e.,  the  analyst  is  not  in  possession 
of  the  name  of  the  manufacturer  or  brand  which  he  is  analyzing,  but 
works  solely  by  the  laboratory  number  assigned  to  the  sample  upon  its 
arrival.  In  case  of  samples  found  below  guarantee,  before  report  is 
made,  at  least  two  analysts  make  independent  determinations  on  different 
portions  of  the  sample  and  in  case  of  disagreement,  these  results  are 
checked  by  a third  analyst  on  another  portion  of  the  sample. 

The  results  of  the  inspection  of  all  samples  are  reported  to  the  man- 
ufacturer, agent  and  persons  from  whom  samples  are  obtained.  In  the 
case  of  deficient  samples,  the  manufacturer  is  given  10  days  in  which  to 
file  objections  and  review  the  work,  for  which  purpose  a portion  of  the 
official  sample  is  furnished  if  requested,  after  which  a duplicate  report 
with  comments  pertinent  to  the  inspection  is  forwarded  to  the  agent  and 
persons  from  whom  the  sample  was  secured. 

Unless  some  exceptional  reason  exists,  requests  that  inspections  be 
reported  within  a certain  time  limit  cannot  be  granted.  Under  the  most 
favorable  conditions,  we  cannot  report  more  than  150  samples  of  fertilizer 
per  month,  and  the  only  regulation  fair  to  all  concerned  is  to  analyze  the 
samples  in  the  order  of  their  arrival.  Therefore,  consumers  should  pur- 
chase not  on  the  basis  of  a certain  time  limit  but  with  the  proviso  that  if 
inspected  and  found  deficient,  the  manufacturer  will  refund  on  the  basis 
of  the  State  Chemist’s  analysis.  The  manufacturer’s  interests  are  fully 
protected  through  the  advance  notice  of  10  days  which  is  sent  him. 

Attention  is  requested  to  the  fact  that  the  prosecutor  of  the  district  in 
which  the  violation  occurs  and  not  the  State  Chemist  is  charged  with  the 
enforcement  of  the  penalties  for  violation  of  the  law  and  any  citizen 
of  the  State  may  call  violations  to  his  attention.  Since  reports  of  the  re- 
sults of  inspection  are  made  to  all  parties  to  the  transaction,  it  is  expected 


9 


that  purchasers  of  fertilizer  will  assist  in  protecting  their  own  interests 
by  reporting  violations.  A copy  of  this  bulletin  is  sent  to  each  prosecutor 
and  a certified  copy  of  the  analysis  of  any  inspection  sample  will  be 
promptly  forwarded  to  any  prosecutor  on  request. 

The  official  duties  of  the  State  Chemist  are  restricted  to  the  inspection 
of  fertilizers  and  feeding  stufifs  and  the  settlement  of  disputes  between 
coal  oil  dealers  and  inspectors.  The  official  work  required  takes  the  en- 
tire time  of  the  staff  of  the  Department  and  no  miscellaneous  work,  either 
gratis  or  for  pay,  can  be  undertaken.  Analyses  of  fertilizers  and  feeding 
stuffs  must  be  restricted  to  samples  secured  by  the  regular  inspectors. 
Analyses  of  water,  soils,  rocks  or  similar  materials  are  not  made  by  the 
Department. 

SAMPLING  INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  INSPECTORS 

All  samples  received  from  the  inspectors  are  analyzed  and  the  results 
reported  and  published,  unless  error  in  connection  with  the  taking  of  same 
by  an  employee  of  the  Department  can  be  shown. 

Notice  of  such  error  or  negligence  on  the  part  of  an  inspector  came 
to  the  attention  of  the  State  Chemist  during  the  past  year.  Investigation 
showed  that  this  inspector  failed  to  secure  all  his  samples  according  to  the 
official  instructions  of  the  State  Chemist,  and  his  connection  with  the  De- 
partment was  severed  immediately;  none  of  the  samples  collected  by  him 
during  the  year  are  given  official  record  and  standing. 

Sampling. — The  sampler  should  be  inserted  into  the  package  with 
slot  closed  and  down.  When  it  extends  the  full  length  of  the  package, 
open  slot,  turn  over,  fill,  close  slot  and  withdraw. 

Samples  from  Packages. — Full  cores  are  to  be  taken  from  20  pack- 
ages if  that  number  is  present.  If  20  packages  are  not  available,  full 
cores  are  to  be  taken  from  each  package  and  sufficient  additional  cores 
from  packages  present  until  the  amount  necessary  to  furnish  a sample  of 
the  size  of  20  full  cores  is  secured.  The  whole  sample  so  taken  is  to  be 
shipped  to  the  State  Chemist. 

Samples  from  Bulk. — Full  cores  must  be  taken  from  not  less  than 
20  separate  places  in  the  pile  and  the  entire  amount  secured  should  be 
shipped  to  the  State  Chemist. 

Special  care  should  be  taken  to  get  a sample  that  fairly  represents 
the  lot  inspected  and  extra  precaution  should  be  taken  in  the  case  of 
mixed  fertilizers  and  those  containing  potash,  to  take  full  cores  from  each 
package. 

Final  Sample. — Place  inspector’s  blank  in  sack,  tie  securely,  seal, 
mark  official  number  of  sample  on  top  of  sack  and  ship  collected  samples 
every  two  or  three  days  to  the  State  Chemist.  Mark  the  boxes  plainly,  put 
the  name  of  the  town  from  which  the  shipment  was  made  on  the  box,  ad- 
dress to  the  State  Chemist,  shipping  charges  collect,  and  if  possible  secure 
the  express  company’s  receipt  for  shipment.  Forward  receipt  with  the 
daily  report. 

Agents  and  consumers  are  requested  to  witness  in  person  the  draw- 
ing of  samples  and  to  sign  the  inspector’s  slip.  Information  showing  fail- 
ure on  the  part  of  any  inspector  to  observe  these  instructions  will  be  grate- 
fully received  and  thoroughly  investigated. 


10 


GENERAL  TERMS 

Plant  Pood. — “A  plant  food  may  be  defined  as  a substance  which  sup- 
plies any  constituent  necessary  for  the  nourishment  of  plants  and  in  a form 
suited  to  promote  their  development,  or  capable  of  being;  changed  by  nat- 
ural processes  into  such  a form.”1  In  connection  with  commercial  fertil- 
izers, this  term  is  used  to  designate  the  plant  food  ingredients,  nitrogen, 
potash  and  phosphoric  acid  which  are  the  three  essential  plant  foods  us- 
ually deficient  in  soils  and  which  commercial  fertilizers  are  designed  to 
supply. 

Available  plant  food. — An  available  plant  food  is  one  that  is  in  such 
form  or  combination  as  to  be  immediately  utilizable  in  the  growth  of  the 
plant  or  in  such  condition  as  to  become  promptly  utilizable  through  natural 
processes. 

Unavailable  plant  food. — An  unavailable  plant  food  is  one  in  such 
form  or  combination  as  not  to  be  capable  of  utilization  by  the  plant  in 
its  growth  or  which  becomes  utilizable  too  slowly  to  be  of  appreciable 
value  in  crop  production. 

Direct  fertilizer. — A direct  fertilizer  is  one  which  supplies  an  es- 
sential plant  food  in  condition  to  be  utilized  in  the  growth  of  the  plant  or 
to  become  available  for  this  purpose  through  natural  processes. 

Indirect  fertilizer. — An  indirect  fertilizer  does  not  furnish  a plant 
food  but  influences  the  growth  of  plants  by  beneficial  effects  on  the  soil, 
such  as  improving  mechanical  conditions,  promoting  aeration,  rendering 
plant  food  already  in  the  soil  more  available,  correcting  acidity  and  similar 
conditions. 

Commercial  fertilizer. — A commercial  fertilizer  is  a material  or  mix- 
ture of  materials  containing  one  or  more  of  the  plant  foods,  nitrogen,  pot- 
ash and  phosphoric  acid,  which  through  manufacturing  or  mixing  pro- 
cesses have  been  rendered  suitable  to  aid  in  the  growth  and  development 
of  plants.  Under  the  Indiana  Fertilizer  law,  “A  commercial  fertilizer  is 
any  and  every  substance  imported,  manufactured,  prepared  and  sold  for 
fertilizing  or  manurial  purposes,  except  barnyard  manure,  marl,  lime, 
wood  ashes  and  plaster.” 

Complete  fertilizer. — A complete  fertilizer  is  one  which  supplies  all 
three  of  the  plant  foods,  nitrogen,  potash  and  phosphoric  acid,  which  are 
essential  to  crop  production  and  most  commonly  deficient  in  cultivated 
soils. 

Incomplete  fertilizer. — An  incomplete  fertilizer  is  one  which  supplies 
only  one  or  two  of  the  plant  foods,  nitrogen,  potash  and  phosphoric  acid. 

High  grade  and  lozv  grade  fertilizers. — The  term  high  grade  fertil- 
izer is  used  to  designate  fertilizers  which  have  plant  food  present  in  large 
quantities,  as  compared  to  low  grade  fertilizers  which  have  a small  amount 
of  plant  food  present.  The  terms  are  also  used  to  designate  the  availabil- 
ity of  plant  food  in  fertilizers.  If  the  plant  food  is  in  available  form 
they  are  termed  high  grade  and  if  in  unavailable  or  slowly  available  form 
they  are  termed  low  grade. 

It  is  extremely  difficult  to  fix  a satisfactory  line  of  demarcation  be- 
tween high,  medium  and  low  grade  fertilizer  since  a high  grade  fertilizer 


1 “Fertilizers  and  Crops” 


II 


for  one  crop  or  section  is  not  necessarily  a high  grade  for  some  other 
crop  or  section.  In  general,  the  division  is  made  on  the  basis  of  the  total 
content  of  plant  food  or  on  the  retail  price.  The  majority  of  authorities 
consider  a high  grade  as  one  having  a sum  total  of  ammonia,  potash  and 
phosphoric  acid  not  less  than  14  per  cent. ; a medium  grade  as  one  having 
a sum  total  not  less  than  12  per  cent.,  and  a low  grade  as  one  having  a 
sum  total  less  than  12  per  cent. 

Wet  mixed  fertiliser. — Wet  mixing  as  originally  practiced,  consisted 
of  mixing  all  the  materials  used  in  the  fertilizer,  including  potash  salts,  and 
adding  sulphuric  acid  to  the  entire  mixture.  At  present,  two  methods 
are  in  use ; in  one,  the  rock  phosphate  is  thoroughly  mixed  with  sulphuric 
acid  and  the  organic  materials  containing  nitrogen  added  to  the  mixture ; 
in  the  other,  rock  phosphate  and  materials  containing  nitrogen  are  first 
thoroughly  mixed  and  the  sulphuric  acid  added  to  the  mixture.  By  the 
wet  process,  the  unavailable  nitrogen  as  well  as  other  plant  food  in  many 
materials  is  rendered  more  available. 

Dry  mixed  fertiliser. — In  this  process,  two  methods  of  procedure  are 
followed,  the  first  of  which  combines  to  some  extent  wet  and  dry  mixing. 
In  the  first,  rock  phosphate  is  thoroughly  mixed  with  sulphuric  acid  and 
partially  seasoned,  but  while  still  hot  and  before  all  free  acid  has  dis- 
appeared the  nitrogenous  materials  are  added,  and  in  the  second,  the  rock 
phosphate  is  treated  with  sulphuric  acid  and  thoroughly  seasoned,  after 
which  the  proper  amount  is  mixed  with  the  nitrogen  and  potash  containing 
materials  to  give  the  desired  formula. 

While  agents  use  the  method  of  mixing  as  a selling  point,  if  the  basic 
materials  are  in  proper  condition,  there  is  no  reason  why  satisfactory 
mixture  should  not  be  obtained  by  either  the  dry  or  wet  mix  method. 
The  available  plant  food  is  just  as  valuable  for  plant  production  from  one 
process  as  from  the  other,  although  in  the  latter  dry  mix  method,  the 
original  material  must  contain  the  plant  food  in  available  form. 

Fillers  and  driers. — Any  material,  which  does  not  contain  appreciable 
quantities  of  nitrogen,  potash  or  phosphoric  acid,  added  to  high  grade 
fertilizer  primarily  to  reduce  the  percentage  of  fertilizing  ingredients,  and 
secondarily  to  improve  its  mechanical  condition,  is  called  a filler.  Mate- 
rials containing  appreciable  amounts  of  any  or  all  of  the  plant  foods  can 
not  properly  be  called  a filler.  Driers  may  be  either  fillers  or  low  grade 
fertilizer  materials. 

Low  grade  fertiliser  materials. — The  term,  low  grade  fertilizer  mate- 
rials, is  used  to  designate  two  distinct  conditions  in  the  fertilizer  trade : 
in  the  first  case,  to  define  a material  in  which  the  amount  of  plant  food 
present  is  much  less  than  that  contained  in  other  materials  known  as  high 
grade,  and  in  the  second  case,  to  indicate  that  the  plant  food  is  of  low 
availability. 

Many  manufacturers,  in  order  to  overcome  the  necessity  of  using  fillers, 
use  low  grade  materials  to  reduce  high  grade  materials  to  a lower  per- 
centage of  plant  food.  These  low  grade  materials  serve  not  only  as  make- 
weights or  diluting  agents  and  driers,  but  also  as  sources  of  plant  food. 
Hence  to  use  the  word  filler  in  connection  with  dried  peat,  muck,  rock 
phosphate,  dried  manure,  tobacco  stems  and  similar  materials  is  incorrect. 


12 


Per  cent. — This  term  is  used  to  indicate  the  number  of  pounds  of 
ingredients  in  each  ioo  pounds  of  fertilizer.  For  example,  a fertilizer 
guaranteed  to  contain  2.0  per  cent,  of  nitrogen,  2.0  per  cent,  of  water 
soluble  potash  and  8.0  per  cent,  of  soluble  and  reverted  (available)  phos- 
phoric acid,  is  guaranteed  to  contain  two  pounds  of  nitrogen,  two  pounds 
of  water  soluble  potash  and  eight  pounds  of  available  phosphoric  acid  in 
each  100  pounds. 

Formula. — This  term  is  used  to  express  the  composition  of  a ferti- 
lizer. For  example,  if  we  say  the  formula  of  a certain  brand  is  1. 6-2-8,  it 
means  in  Indiana  that  the  minimum  guarantee  for  the  fertilizer  is  1.6  per 
cent,  of  nitrogen,  2.0  per  cent,  of  water  soluble  potash,  and  8.0  per  cent, 
of  available  phosphoric  acid.  In  the  general  trade,  the  nitrogen  is  usually 
expressed  in  terms  of  ammonia  and  is  followed  by  the  percentage  of  phos- 
phoric acid  and  potash  respectively.  Thus,  in  the  advertising  matter  of 
fertilizer  manufacturers,  the  above  formula  becomes  2-8-2,  i.  e.,  2.0  per 
cent,  of  ammonia,  8.0  per  cent,  of  available  phosphoric  acid  and  2.0  per 
cent,  of  water  soluble  potash. 

While  at  the  present  time  some  81  elements  are  known  to  exist,  only 
14  (calcium,  carbon,  chlorine,  hydrogen,  iron,  magnesium,  manganese, 
nitrogen,  oxygen,  phosphorus,  ’potassium,  silicon,  sodium  and  sulphur) 
seem  to  be  generally  present  in  plants,  and  of  these  14,  only  10  are  prob- 
ably essential  to  their  growth  and  maintenance.  Of  the  10  which  are 
essential  in  normal  plant  production,  only  four,  nitrogen,  potassium,  phos- 
phorus and  calcium  are  liable  to  be  deficient  in  the  soil  to  such  an  extent 
as  to  impair  its  productiveness  and  only  three,  nitrogen,  potassium  and 
phosphorus,  (the  latter  two  generally  designated  in  fertilizers  as  com- 
pounds under  the  name  of  potash  and  phosphoric  acid)  are  considered  in 
the  manufacture  and  use  of  commercial  fertilizers. 

CHEMICAL  TERMS 

Nitrogen  is  a gas  and  therefore  cannot  be  utilized  directly  in  the 
manufacture  of  commercial  fertilizers.  It  is  always  present  in  combina- 
tion with  other  elements  usually  as  nitrates,  ammonia  salts  or  organic 
nitrogen.  The  nitrogen  in  the  inspection  samples  has  been  separated  into 
different  groups  and  appears  in  Table  VI,  under  the  following  headings: 

Nitrates  and  ammonia  salts  is  that  portion  of  the  water  soluble  nitro- 
gen in  the  fertilizer  derived  from  nitrates  and  ammonia  salts  such  as: 
nitrate  of  soda,  ammonium  sulphate,  etc.  Nitrogen  in  these  forms  pos- 
sesses a high  grade  of  availability  and  can  be  readily  utilized  by  the  plant 
in  its  growth. 

Water  soluble  organic  nitrogen  is  that  portion  of  the  water  soluble 
nitrogen  in  the  fertilizer  derived  from  organic  materials,  and  although  it 
is  probably  not  as  readily  available  for  the  use  of  plants  as  nitrates  and 
ammonia  salts,  it  possesses  a high  degree  of  availability. 

Active  zvater  insoluble  organic  nitrogen  is  that  portion  of  the  organic 
nitrogen  insoluble  in  water  but  rendered  soluble  or  liberated  by  the  alka- 
line potassium  permanganate  solution  used  in  the  C.  H.  Jones  method. 
The  determination  is  a measure  of  the  quality  and  not  the  quantity  of  the 
water  insoluble  organic  nitrogen.  High  grade  organic  materials  such  as 


13 


dried  blood,  tankage,  etc.,  will  show  a relatively  higher  percentage  in  the 
“active  water  insoluble  organic”  column  than  in  the  “inactive  insoluble 
organic”  column.  Those  deriving  their  nitrogen  from  low  grade  organic 
materials  such  as  peat,  garbo  tankage,  leather,  etc.,  will  have  the  larger 
percentage  in  the  “inactive  organic  insoluble”  column. 

Inactive  water  insoluble  organic  nitrogen  is  that  part  of  the  organic 
nitrogen  insoluble  in  water  and  not  affected  by  the  alkaline  potassium  per- 
manganate solution  and  \yhen  compared  with  the  active  water  insoluble 
organic  nitrogen  is  of  value  in  ascertaining  the  quality  of  the  water  insol- 
uble organic  nitrogen. 

Total  water  soluble  and  active  nitrogen  is  the  nitrogen  present  in  the 
fertilizer  and  may  be  considered  as  in  such  form  as  to  be  readily  used  by 
the  ordinary  crops  during  the  growing  season.  In  other  words,  it  is  all 
the  nitrogen  in  the  fertilizer  except  the  inactive  water  insoluble  organic. 
As  explained  in  a previous  report,  the  total  water  soluble  and  active  col- 
umn is  not  of  general  use  but  has  been  adopted  by  the  State  Chemist’s 
Department  in  the  hope  that  it  may  offer  a simple  method  of  comparing 
the  amounts  of  utilizable  nitrogen  present  in  various  brands  inspected. 

Total  nitrogen  is  the  entire  amount  of  nitrogen  contained  in  a fer- 
tilizer and  is  the  guarantee  required  by  law. 

The  data  at  present  available  on  fertilizers  sold  in  Indiana  do  not 
justify  general  deductions  on  the  nitrogen  determinations,  but  the  detailed 
results  are  published  in  Table  VI  and  can  be  advantageously  used  by  fer- 
tilizer purchasers.  The  principal  sources  of  the  nitrogen  used  in  the  com- 
mercial fertilizer  sold  in  Indiana  are:  packing  house  by-products  (dried 
blood,  tankage,  bone),  nitrate  of  soda,  cyanamid,  ground  tobacco  stems, 
garbo  tankage,  and  ammonium  sulphate. 

Potash , K20,  containing  the  plant  food  potassium,  is  a compound  of 
potassium  and  oxygen  in  the  proportion  by  weight  of  78  parts  of  the  for- 
mer to  16  parts  of  the  latter  and  as  used  in  this  bulletin,  means  the  total 
amount  of  the  compound  present  which  is  soluble  in  boiling  distilled 
water.  Neither  potassium  nor  potassium  oxide  can  be  used  directly  in 
manufacturing  fertilizers  and  hence  like  nitrogen,  this  plant  food  is 
always  present  in  combination  with  other  elements. 

Consumers  should  carefully  save  wood  ashes,  cob  ashes,  straws, 
tobacco  waste,  garbage,  corn  stalks  and  other  carriers  of  potash  in  order 
to  conserve  this  valuable  element  to  the  fullest  extent. 

Phosphoric  acid,  P205  is  the  compound  recognized  by  the  law  and  in 
general  by  the  fertilizer  trade  as  containing  the  plant  food  phosphorus, 
and  is  composed  by  weight  of  62  parts  of  the  former  to  80  parts  of  the 
latter.  This  compound  known  in  the  trade  as  phosphoric  acid,  occurs  in 
most  fertilizers  in  combination  with  lime  but  in  some  cases  is  combined 
with  iron  and  alumina. 

Available  phosphoric  acid  is  the  amount  of  phosphoric  acid  present 
in  the  fertilizer  readily  available  for  the  use  of  the  plant  and  consists  of 
two  forms : soluble,  which  dissolves  in  cold  water  and  reverted,  which 
while  insoluble  in  cold  water,  is  soluble  in  the  soil  solvents  and  is  deter- 
mined by  digesting  two  grams  of  the  fertilizer,  from  which  the  water  sol- 
uble phosphoric  acid  has  been  removed,  with  100  cubic  centimeters  of 
neutral  ammonium  citrate  solution,  specific  gravity  1.09,  for  30  minutes 


14 


at  65  degrees  C.  The  soluble  phosphoric  acid  is  combined  with  lime  to 
form  mono-calcium  phosphate,  CaH4  (P04)2  and  the  reverted  is  in  com- 
bination with  lime  as  di-calcium  phosphate  (Ca2H2)  (P04)2. 

The  principal  sources  of  available  phosphoric  acid  in  the  fertilizers 
sold  in  Indiana  are:  acidulated  rock  phosphate  (acid  phosphate)  ; packing 
house  by-products,  acidulated  and  non-acidulated ; spent  bone  black  from 
sugar  refineries  and  other  manufactories;  precipitated  bone  from  glue 
factories,  and  basic  slag  which  is  sold  in  limited  quantities. 

Insoluble  phosphoric  acid  is  the  amount  of  phosphoric  acid  in  the  fer- 
tilizer not  soluble  in  water  or  ammonium  citrate  solution.  This  form  of 
phosphoric  acid,  which  exists  in  combination  with  lime  to  form  tri-calcium 
phosphate  Ca3  (P04)2,  is  not  readily  available  for  the  use  of  plants  in 
their  growth.  The  phosphoric  acid  in  the  unacidulated  rock  phosphates 
utilized  for  fertilizers  and  also  the  insoluble  in  acidulated  rock  phosphates 
used  in  this  state,  is  tri-calcium  phosphate.  Distinction  should  be  made, 
however,  in  the  case  of  insoluble  phosphoric  acid  from  rock  phosphate 
and  from  animal  products,  such  as  bone,  tankage  and  other  slaughter 
house  waste,  since  the  latter  decays  rapidly  and  becomes  available  much 
more  quickly  than  the  former. 

Total  phosphoric  acid  is  the  sum  of  the  soluble,  reverted  and  insol- 
uble, i.  e.,  all  the  phosphoric  acid  in  the  fertilizer. 

GUARANTEES 

By  the  term  guarantee  is  meant  the  minimum  amount  of  plant  food 
which  the  person  or  firm  responsible  for  the  sale  of  the  fertilizer,  certifies 
it  to  contain. 

While  under  the  Indiana  law,  the  guarantee  must  be  made  in  terms 
of  nitrogen  (N),  potash  (K20)  and  phosphoric  acid  (P2Os),  other  states 
have  dififerent  requirements  and  in  many  the  guarantee  for  the  nitrogen- 
ous ingredient  is  required  in  terms  of  ammonia  (NH3),  a compound  of 
nitrogen  and  hydrogen  in  the  proportion  of  14  parts  by  weight  of  the  for- 
mer to  three  parts  by  weight  of  the  latter.  To  convert  ammonia  into 
nitrogen,  multiply  the  percentage  of  the  former  by  0.822,  and  to  convert 
nitrogen  into  ammonia,  multiply  the  per  cent,  of  nitrogen  by  1.22. 

In  the  case  of  potash,  the  requirements  in  some  states  call  for  the 
guarantee  to  be  made  in  terms  of  the  plant  food  element,  potassium.  To 
convert  potassium  into  percentage  of  potash  (K20),  multiply  the  per- 
centage of  the  former  by  1.21  and  to  express  potash  (K20)  in  terms  of 
potassium,  multiply  the  percentage  of  potash  by  0.83. 

In  a similar  manner,  some  states  require  that  the  percentage  of  phos- 
phorus and  not  phosphoric  acid  be  guaranteed.  To  express  percentage 
of  phosphorus  in  terms  of  phosphoric  acid,  multiply  the  percentage  of 
the  former  by  2.29,  and  to  convert  phosphoric  acid  into  phosphorus,  mul- 
tiply the  per  cent,  of  phosphoric  acid  by  0.436. 

Calculation  of  formulas. — While  to  many  the  calculation  of  fertilizer 
formulas  is  mysterious,  in  reality,  it  is  a very  simple  matter  and  resolves 
itself  into  ascertaining  the  number  of  pounds  of  plant  food  desired  in  a 
ton  or  any  given  quantity  of  fertilizer  by  multiplying  the  amount  to  be 
prepared  by  the  percentage  of  plant  food  desired  in  the  finished  product 


i5 


and  dividing  this  result  by  the  guaranteed  percentage  of  the  plant  food  in 
the  raw  material  from  which  it  is  to  be  obtained.  For  example,  if  we 
wish  to  manufacture  one  ton  of  i. 6-2-8  fertilizer  from  dried  blood  con- 
taining 14  per  cent,  of  nitrogen,  western  potash  containing  22  per  cent, 
of  water  soluble  potash  and  acid  phosphate  containing  14  per  cent,  of 
available  phosphoric  acid,  we  proceed  as  follows : 

2000  pounds  (in  ton)  x 0.016  = 32  pounds  nitrogen 

32  pounds  -T-  0.14  = 228.5  number  of  pounds  of  dried  blood  required ; 
2000  pounds  (in  ton)  x 0.02  = 40  pounds  of  potash 

40  pounds  -r-  0.22  = 181.9  number  of  pounds  of  western  potash 
required ; 

2000  pounds  (in  ton)  x 0.08  = 160  pounds  of  available  phosphoric  acid 

160  pounds  -T-  0.14  = 1 142.9  number  of  pounds  of  acid  phosphate 
required ; 

Filler  or  dryer  required  to  make  up  to  ton,  pounds  required  446.7. 

Total,  2000  pounds. 

If  the  use  of  filler  is  not  desired,  the  more  concentrated  material 
can  be  used  in  smaller  amount  per  acre. 

If  200  pounds  per  acre  of  1. 6-2-8  fertilizer  are  required,  the  equivalent 
amount  of  the  mixture  without  filler  to  be  used,  can  be  ascertained  by 
the  following  simple  proportion. 

2000  pounds  : 1553.3  pounds  ::  200  pounds  : X = 155.3,  number  of 
pounds  concentrated  mixture  required  per  acre. 

ACTION  OF  PLANT  FOODS 

In  considering  the  part  played  by  the  plant  foods,  nitrogen,  potash 
and  phosphoric  acid  in  the  growth  of  the  plant,  it  must  be  kept  in  mind 
that  the  effect  of  any  element  is  largely  dependent  on  the  other  elements 
necessary  to  plant  growth  being  present  in  normal  amounts,  that  all  the 
elements  working  together  are  essential  to  maximum  crop  production  and 
that  even  when  these  are  present  the  results  obtained  by  their  use  are 
often  very  materially  affected  by  cultural  and  climatic  conditions. 

It  is  generally  conceded,  however,  that : 

Nitrogen  exerts  its  greatest  influence  on  the  amount  of  foliage,  the 
flowering  process,  maturing,  color,  growth,  quality  and  disease  resisting 
power  of  the  plant. 

If  sufficient  available  nitrogen  is  not  present,  there  will  be  a lack  of 
foliage,  stalks  or  stems  will  be  short,  leaves  or  blades  small,  color  yellow- 
ish, weight  of  foliage,  straw  and  grain  or  fruit  less  than  when  the  re- 
quired amount  of  nitrogen  is  available. 

If  excessive  amounts  of  available  nitrogen  are  used,  the  growth  of 
foliage  will  be  out  of  proportion  to  the  grain  or  fruit,  the  growth,  de- 
velopment, and  maturity  of  the  crop  retarded,  a tendency  to  softness  of 
the  tissues  and  apparently  less  power  to  resist  attacks  of  fungous  diseases. 

Potash  is  apparently  essential  to  the  formation  and  transference  of 
starch  and  other  carbohydrates,  has  an  important  part  in  the  development 
of  leaves  and  woody  parts  of  stems,  stiffens  the  stem,  stalk  and  straw, 
assists  in  the  development  of  the  fleshy  parts  of  fruits  and  makes  the  plants 
more  resistant  to  the  attacks  of  fungous  diseases. 


i6 


Lack  of  potash  results  in  weak  plants,  while  excessive  amounts  delay 
the  maturing  of  the  crop. 

Phosphoric  acid  in  available  form  favors  rapid  development  of  the 
young  plant,  hastens  maturity,  increases  the  proportion  of  grain  to  straw, 
assists  in  developing  the  grain  and  is  necessary  to  the  development  of 
protoplasm  without  which  there  could  be  no  plant  growth. 

SPECIAL  INVESTIGATION 

INJURY  TO  CORN  CAUSED  BY  BORAX  IN  FERTILIZER 

On  June  4,  1917,  the  attention  of  the  State  Chemist’s  Department 
was  called  to  a field  of  corn  near  Francesville  where  a Double-Five  Fer- 
tilizer (5  per  cent,  potash  and  5 per’ cent,  available  phosphoric  acid)  had 
apparently  injured  corn.  An  immediate  investigation  of  this  field  and 
others  in  the  vicinity  was  made  and  the  following  conditions  found : 

That  some  of  the  corn  had  come  up  white  and  later,  part  of  it 
acquired  a green  color. 

Thaj;  some  of  the  corn  had  come  up  green,  turned  white  and  later, 
part  of  it  regained  its  color. 

That  some  of  the  hills  were  all  green,  some  were  all  white,  and 
some  had  both  white  plants  and  green  plants. 

Borax  was  suspected  as  being  the  injurious  material  and  a sample  of 
an  unused  portion  of  the  fertilizer,  that  had  apparently  caused  this  con- 
dition, was  taken  and  an  analysis  showed  this  sample  of  Double-Five 
Fertilizer  to  contain  1.63  per  cent,  borax.  Other  samples  of  Double-Five 
which  contained  much  less  borax  produced  no  apparent  injury. 

The  survey  of  these  fields  on  the  following  week  showed  improve- 
ment in  color  but  the  plants  were  not  making  a normal  growth. 

Some  fields  were  disked  and  replanted  because  of  the  poor  stand, 
but  replants  in  the  same  row  were  not  affected. 

The  type  of  soil  on  which  the  plants  were  most  seriously  injured  was 
a loose  sandy  loam,  the  heavier,  more  solid  types  of  soil  showing  the  least 
injury. 

Much  of  this  Double-Five  brand  did  no  injury.  The  fertilizer  from 
some  cars  worked  greater  damage  than  that  from  other  cars,  yet  from 
the  same  car,  some  fertilizer  caused  injury  and  some  did  not. 

This  fertilizer  was  all  drilled  in  the  row ; amounts  varying  from  50 
pounds  to  150  pounds  per  acre.  Where  injury  was  done,  the  heavier 
the  application,  the  greater  the  injury.  Some  injury  resulted  from  use  of 
fertilizer  containing  only  3.0  per  cent,  potash. 

The  borax  which  was  present  in  the  potash  purchased  by  the  manu- 
facturer and  which  was  analyzed  by  him  only  for  its  potash  content, 
injured  the  plants  in  the  following  manner: 

By  the  bleaching  effect  and  by  the  prevention  of  chlorophyl  forma- 
tion in  the  blades. 

By  destroying  tissue  of  the  shoot  or  root  in  whole  or  in  part. 

By  seriously  impairing  the  stand  of  the  corn. 

By  reducing  the  vigor  of  the  corn  so  that  insects  worked  greater 
injury. 

By  checking  the  growth,  thus  shortening  its  growing  season. 


1 7 


On  June  13,  1917  the  Chief  Inspector  of  the  State  Chemist’s  De- 
partment made  a trip  to  Cincinnati  to  present  these  conditions  to  the 
company  and  to  request  that  they  send  their  representative  to  Frances- 
ville  to  procure  information  direct,  of  the  extent  and  amount  of  injury 
resulting  from  the  use  of  their  Double-Five  Fertilizer. 

After  a thorough  discussion  of  the  conditions  and  the  responsibility 
of  the  company,  assurance  was  given  that  the  company  would  protect  its 
customers.  The  chemist  of  the  corporation,  accompanied  by  the  Chief 
Inspector,  made  a thorough  investigation  of  all  of  the  fields  and  investi- 
gated all  complaints.  Additional  trips  were  made  during  the  growing 
season  to  observe  the  progress  of  the  corn  and  hear  additional  complaints, 
if  any. 

It  should  be  remembered  that  the  season  of  1917  was  abnormal  and 
that  a large  portion  of  the  corn  crop,  either  with  or  without  fertilizer, 
failed  to  mature.  Undoubtedly  the  injury  produced  by  the  fertilizer  con- 
taining borax  was  greater  in  1917  than  it  would  have  been  in  a normal 
year. 

Adjustment  of  the  damage  claims  was  made  in  November  by  two 
of  the  company’s  officers  and  the  Chief  Inspector  of  the  State  Chemist’s 
Department. 

By  this  adjustment,  made  with  each  individual  farmer  who  had  suf- 
fered injury  from  the  fertilizer  used,  the  International  Agricultural  Cor- 
poration, who  manufactured  the  fertilizer,  paid  the  several  farmers  in 
and  about  Francesville,  Indiana,  the  agreed  damages  amounting  to 
$8000.00.  In  the  opinion  of  the  State  Chemist’s  Department,  the  Inter- 
national Agricultural  Corporation  has  been  very  fair  in  making  these 
adjustments  and  certainly  made  good  its  promises  given  to  the  Chief 
Inspector  earlier  in  the  season. 

Slater's  Slag. — Much  confusion  exists  in  the  minds  of  many  con- 
sumers in  Indiana  regarding  Slater’s  Slag  as  manufactured  by  the  Ameri- 
can Basic  Phosphate  Company  of  Leatherwood,  Tennessee.  Two  ship- 
ments of  this  slag,  30  tons  each,  were  found  and  inspected  in  Indiana  in 
I9I7-  All  sacks  were  labeled  No.  7010,  The  American  Basic  Phosphate 
Company  of  Leatherwood,  Tennessee,  guaranteeing  Slater’s  Slag  to  con- 
tain not  less  than  18  per  cent,  total  phosphoric  acid. 

In  addition  to  determining  total  phosphoric  acid,  available  phosphoric 
acid  was  ascertained  by  both  the  neutral  ammonium  citrate  and  the  2.0  per 
cent,  citric  acid  method,  the  latter  being  official  for  basic  slag.  The  fol- 
lowing summary  contains  the  analysis  of  Slater’s  Slag,  also  the  average 
analysis  of  five  known  basic  slags  and  one  untreated  raw  rock  phosphate 
(Brown  Tennessee  Rock),  which  are  given  at  this  time  for  the  purpose  of 
comparison. 


Total 
phosphoric 
acid, 
per  cent. 

Phosphoric 
acid  soluble 
in  2 per  cent, 
citric  acid, 
per  cent . 

Phosphoric 
acid  soluble 
in  neutral 
ammonium 
citrate, 
per  cent. 

Found 
comparative 
value 
per  ton 

Basic  slag  

17.7 

14.0 

10.8 

$15.93 

Slater’s  Slag  __  

16.2 

2.3 

1.4 

4.86 

Untreated  rock  phosphate 

29.3 

5.7 

8.79 

i8 


The  much  higher  solubility  in  2.0  per  cent,  citric  acid  of  basic  slag 
and  also  of  the  untreated  raw  rock  phosphate  over  Slater’s  Slag,  shows 
that  no  injustice  has  been  done  the  American  Basic  Phosphate  Co.,  when 
the  State  Chemist  assigns  the  same  comparative  value,  30  cents  per  unit 
to  Slater’s  Slag  as  to  untreated  rock  phosphate. 

The  preceding  two  inspections  of  Slater’s  Slag  which  appear  in  our 
main  inspection  table  (Table  VI)  were  settled  by  the  manufacturers  re- 
funding agents  the  total  cost  on  the  two  30-ton  shipments  of  slag.  Mr.  Sla- 
ter, chemist  and  part  owner  of  the  American  Basic  Phosphate  Company, 
'claims  these  two  shipments  were  sent  from  the  factory  in  his  absence  and 
were  not  intended  for  the  fertilizer  trade  in  Indiana.  No  shipments  of  Sla- 
ter’s Slag  have  since  been  found  in  the  State  and  consumers  will  confer  a 
favor  on  the  State  Chemist  by  notifying  him  promptly  when  a shipment  of 
Slater’s  Slag  is  received. 

FERTILIZER  MAP 

The  fertilizer  map  on  page  25,  now  contains  1181  towns  where  fer- 
tilizer is  known  to  be  on  sale  as  compared  with  544  towns  in  1905. 


Towns  Added  to  Map  in  1917 


County 

No.  of 
town  on 
map 

Name  of  town 

Benton  

15 

Chase 

Brown  __  

10 

E'ruitdale 

Carroll  _ 

11 

Burlington 

Clinton 

15 

Edna  Mills 

Howard  

5 

Oakford 

6 

Sycamore 

Jackson  

19 

Reddington 

Kosciusko  

13 

Shakespeare 

Lake  

17 

Dinwiddie 

18 

Dyer 

County 

No.  of 
town  on 
map 

Name  of  town 

Madison  

10 

Lapel 

Miami  __ 

9 

Macy 

Newton  _ _ 

12 

Beaver  City 

13 

Elmer 

Porter  

12 

Chesterton 

Pulaski  

9 

Oak 

Steuben  

11 

Steubenville 

Tippecanoe  - 

11 

South  Raub 

Wabash  — 

11 

Roann 

ESTIMATED  SALES  IN  1917  COMPARED  WITH  THOSE  OF  1908  AND  1916 

As  there  is  no  provision  in  the  fertilizer  law  requiring  a report  of 
sales,  absolute  data  as  to  the  amount  of  fertilizer  purchased  annually 
cannot  be  secured.  However,  based  upon  reports  of  sales  received  from 
a large  majority  of  manufacturers,  reports  from  inspectors,  tag  orders 
and  similar  sources  of  information,  it  is  estimated  that  196,186  tons  of 
fertilizer  with  a total  retail  value  of  $5,064,987.05  were  sold  in  the  State 
in  1917.  Compared  with  the  sales  for  1916,  this  shows  an  increase  of 
63,562  tons  and  an  increase  in  expenditures  of  $1,821,170.52,  while  a 
decrease  of  22,953  tons  and  an  increase  of  $119,107.90  in  expenditures  is 
shown  when  compared  with  1914  sales,  the  year  the  European  war  began. 
Compared  with  sales  of  1908,  10  years  previous,  a gain  of  93,877  tons 
equivalent  to  92  per  cent,  with  $2,607,581.05  increase  in  expenditures  is 
shown.  The  reasons  for  the  increase  in  1917  over  1916  sales  may  be  sum- 
marized briefly  as : the  Government’s  campaign  for  increased  crop  produc- 
tion, and  increase  in  prices  for  farm  produce. 

The  variations  in  formulas,  prices  and  total  values  are  set  out  in  de- 
tail in  the  following  table  : 


19 

Comparison  Sales  and  Formulas,  1908-1916-1917 


Class  of  fertilizer 

Estimated  sales,  tons 

Average  retail 
price  per  ton, 
dollars 

1908 

1916 

1917 

1916 

1917 

1. 

Acid  phosphate,  20  per  cent,  available  phosphoric 

acid  _ 

3 

715 

20.00 

23.50 

2. 

Acid  phosphate,  18  per  cent,  available  phosphoric 

acid  

2,379 

2,010 

23.46 

19.61 

3. 

Acid  phosphate,  16  to  18  per  cent,  available  phos- 

phoric  acid  

42 

17,775 

32,706 

20.30 

20.22 

4. 

Acid  phosphate,  14  to  16  per  cent,  available  phos- 

phoric  acid  — _______ 

6,733 

6,160 

7,041 

19.74 

19.79 

5. 

Acid  phosphate,  less  than  14  per  cent,  available 

phosphoric  acid 

1,117 

209 

47 

18.00 

6. 

Acid  phosphate  and  potash,  (K2O),  below  1 per  cent. 

160 

33 

25.00 

7. 

Acid  phosphate  and  potash,  (K2O),  1.0  to  2.5  per 

cent.  

5,562 

1,523 

2,653 

24.56 

25.89 

8. 

Acid  phosphate  and  potash,  (K2O),  2.5  to  5.0  per 

cent.  

3,336 

478 

285 

31.81 

30.75 

9. 

Acid  phosphate  and  potash,  (K2O),  5.0  to  7.5  per 

1,806 

618 

29.80 

37.62 

10. 

Acid  phosphate  and  potash,  (K2O),  7.5  to  10  per 

cent. 

855 

11. 

Acid  phosphate  and  potash,  (K2O),  10  to  12.5  per 

cent.  

313 

14. 

Acid  phosphate  and  untreated  rock  phosphate _ 

250 

2,145 

22.00 

22.55 

15. 

Ammoniated  acid  phosphate  

1,182 

32,578 

67,820 

23.30 

25.69 

16. 

Complete  fertilizer,  nitrogen  below  0.5  per  cent 

7,443 

15,416 

27,121 

25.77 

27.97 

17. 

Complete  fertilizer,  nitrogen  0.5  to  1.0  per  cent 

26,534 

8,815 

27,751 

25.27 

28.32 

18. 

Complete  fertilizer,  nitrogen  1.0  to  1.6  per  cent 

12,878 

22,913 

4,657 

26.64 

28.16 

19. 

Complete  fertilizer,  nitrogen  1.6  to  2.5  per  cent.. 

16,569 

11,404 

7,366 

30.20 

33.23 

20. 

Complete  fertilizer,  nitrogen  2.5  to  4.0  per  cent 

1,229 

150 

228 

29.81 

29.75 

21. 

Complete  fertilizer,  nitrogen  4+  per  cent.- 

65 

1 

120.00 

23. 

Peruvian  guano  __  __  

15 

165.00 

24. 

Complete  fertilizer,  (K2O),  below  1.0  per  cent.* 

259 

7,601 

13,470 

25.26 

25~82 

25. 

Complete  fertilizer,  (K2O),  1.0  to  2.5  per  cent.* 

44,720 

48,020 

49,029 

26.48 

28.72 

26. 

Complete  fertilizer,  (K2O),  2.5  to  5.0  per  cent.*..  __ 

12,361 

2,986 

3,497 

33.26 

33.96 

27. 

Complete  fertilizer,  (K2O),  5.0  to  7.5  per  cent.* 

4,142 

1 

227 



49.45 

28. 

Complete  fertilizer,  (K2O),  7.5  to  10  per  cent.*  _ 

2,006 

1 

29. 

flmnplete  fertiliser,  (TfofD,  10  tn  12  .5  per  pent* 

1,230 

31. 

Raw  bone  — - - 

5,523 

” 3^669 

"i’284 

31.98 

35.83 

32. 

Steamed  bone __ 

6,267 

2,404 

5,050 

30.71 

33.59 

33. 

Ammoniatwl  hnne 

475 

91 

30.00 

32.00 

35. 

Acidulated  bone 

27 

34.00 

37. 

Bone  and  potash 

1,524 

329 

165 

27.25 

29~00 

39. 

Tankage  - — _ 

520 

607 

300 

25.00 

40.35 

40. 

Tankage  and  potash 

370 

104 

27 

27.33 

41. 

Basic  slag  - __  _ _ _ 

34 

63 

7 

23.25 

42. 

Rock  phosphate  . . 

432 

3,272 

2,424 

7.78 

7.86 

43. 

Rock  phosphate  and  low  grade  slag 

305 

60 

28.65 

30.00 

45. 

Nitrate  of  soda  __  - 

121 

159 

93 

82.50 

75.00 

46. 

Dried  blood  _ _ 

34 

4 

3 

47. 

Muriate  of  potash  _ _ 

660 

48. 

Sulphate  of  potash 

86 

49. 

Manure  salts - _ _ 

50. 

Kainit  

828 

51. 

Tobacco  stems  

50 

144 

2 

43.00 

40.00 

52. 

Manure  ash  __  _ _ _ 

33 

2 

53. 

Dried  manure 

855 

420 

34.43 

33.92 

55. 

Garbo  tankage  _ _ 

66 

5 

16.15 

19.00 

56. 

Muck  or  peat _ 

33 

37.00 

Totals 

102,309 

132,624 

196,186 

Not  included  in  addition  for  totals 


20 


Comparisons  of  the  spring  and  fall  sales  both  as  regards  formulas 
and  retail  values  are  shown  in  the  following: 


Class  of  fertilizer 

Estimated  sales,  tons 

Average  retail  value 

s,  dollars 

Spring 

Fall 

Total 

Spring 

Fall 

Total 

1. 

Acid  phosphate,  20  per  cent,  avail- 

able  phosphoric  acid 

413 

302 

715 

9,705.50 

7,097.00 

16,802.50 

2. 

Acid  phosphate,  18  per  cent,  avail- 

able  phosphoric  acid  

1,188 

822 

2,010 

23,296.68 

16,119.42 

39,416.10 

3. 

Acid  phosphate,  16  to  18  per  cent. 

available  phosphoric  acid 

13,712 

19,084 

32,796 

277,256.64 

385,878.48 

663,135.12 

4. 

Acid  phosphate,  14  to  16  per  cent. 

available  phosphoric  acid 

2,427 

4,614 

7,041 

48,030.33 

91,311.06 

139,341.39 

5. 

Acid  phosphate,  less  than  14  per 

cent,  available  phosphoric  acid__ 

30 

17 

47 

547.50 

310.25 

857.75 

7. 

Acid  phosphate  and  potash,  (K2O), 

1.0  to  2.5  per  cent.  

1,178 

1,475 

2,653 

30,498.42 

38',187.75 

68,686.17 

8. 

Acid  phosphate  and  potash,  (K2O), 

2.5  to  5.0  per  cent. 

285 

285 

8,763.75 

8,763.75 

9. 

Acid  phosphate  and  potash,  (K2O), 

5.0  to  7.5  per  cent.  

602 

16 

618 

22,647.24 

601.92 

23,249.16 

14. 

Acid  phosphate  and  untreated  rock 

phosphate  

974 

1,171 

2,145 

21,963.70 

26,406.05 

48,369.75 

15. 

Ammoniated  acid  phosphate  

23,883 

43,937 

67,820 

613,554.27 

1,128,741.53 

1,742,295.80 

16. 

Complete  fertilizer,  nitrogen  below 

0.5  per  cent. 

9,527 

17,594 

27,121 

266,470:19 

492,104.18 

758,574.37 

17. 

Complete  fertilizer,  nitrogen  0.5  to 

1.0  per  cent. 

15,405 

12,346 

27,761 

436,269.60 

349,638.72 

785,908.32 

18. 

Complete  fertilizer,  nitrogen  1.0  to 

1.6  per  cent. 

2,901 

1,756 

4,657 

81,692.16 

49,448.96 

131,141.12 

19. 

Complete  fertilizer,  nitrogen  1.6  to 

2.5  per  cent.  

4,695 

2,671 

7,366 

156,014.85 

88,757.33' 

244,772.18 

20. 

Complete  fertilizer,  nitrogen  2.5  to 

4.0  per  cent. 

149 

79 

228 

4,432.75 

2,350.25 

6,783.00 

24. 

Complete  fertilizer,  (K2O),  below 

1.0  per  cent.*  

6,803 

6,667 

13,470 

175,653.46 

172,141.94 

347,795.40 

25. 

Complete  fertilizer,  (KsO),  1.0  to 

2.5  per  cent.* 

22,498 

27,431 

49,929 

646,142.56 

787,818.32 

1,433,960,88 

26. 

Complete  fertilizer,  (K2O),  2.5  to 

5.0  per  cent.*  ___ 

3,230 

267 

3,497 

109,690.80 

9,067.32 

118,758.12 

27. 

Complete  fertilizer,  (K2O),  5.0  to 

7.5  per  cent.*  

140 

81 

227 

7,219.70 

4,005.45 

11,225.15 

31. 

Raw  bone  

199 

4,086 

4,284 

7,130.17 

146,365.55 

153,495.72 

32. 

Steamed  bone  ___  

824 

4,226 

5,050 

27,678.16 

141,951.34 

169,629.50 

33. 

Ammoniated  bone 

25 

66 

91 

800.00 

2,112.00 

2,912.00 

37. 

Bone  and  potash 

9 

156 

165 

261.00 

4,524.00 

4,785.00 

39. 

Tankage  

165 

135 

300 

6,657.75 

5,447.25 

12,105.00 

40. 

Tankage  and  potash  

17 

10 

27 

725.50 

426.80 

1,152.36 

41. 

Basic  slag  _ 

7 

7 

201.95 

201.95 

42. 

Rock  phosphate 

748 

1,676 

2,424 

5,879.28 

13,173.36 

19,052.64 

43. 

Rock  phosphate  and  low  grade  slag 

60 

60 

1,800.00 

1,800.00 

45. 

Nitrate  of  soda 

73 

20 

93 

5,475.00 

1,500.00 

6,975.00 

46. 

Dried  blood  

3 

3 

300.00 

300.00 

51. 

Tobacco  stems 

1 

1 

2 

40.00 

40.00 

80.00 

52. 

Manure  ash 

1 

1 

2 

30.00 

30.00 

60.00 

53. 

Dried  manure 

353 

67 

420 

11,973.76 

2,272.64 

14,246.40 

55. 

Garbo  tankage _ . 

3 

2 

5 

57.00 

38.00 

95.00 

Totals 

79,797 

116,389 

196,186 

2,068,353.21 

2,996,633.84  5,064,987.05 

* Not  included  in  addition  for  totals 


Comparison  of  sales  of  1917  with  those  of  1916  shows  that  of  29 
classes  available,  11  show  an  increase  in  sales  ranging  from  78  tons  in 
complete  fertilizer  containing  2.5  to  4.0  per  cent,  nitrogen  to  35,242  tons 
for  ammoniated  acid  phosphate,  while  18  show  a decrease  of  from  one 
ton  for  dried  blood,  to  18,256  tons  for  complete  fertilizer  containing  1.0 
to  1.6  per  cent,  nitrogen. 

In  the  matter  of  prices,  18  of  25  classes  show  an  increase  varying 
from  five  cents  for  acid  phosphate,  14  to  16  per  cent,  available  phosphoric 


21 


acid,  to  $15.35  f°r  tankage,  while  seven  show  a decrease  varying  from  six 
cents  for  complete  fertilizer,  nitrogen  2.5  to  4.0  per  cent,  to  $7.00  for 
nitrate  of  soda. 

Considering  the  complete  fertilizer  on  the  basis  of  potash  guaranteed, 
four  of  five  classes  show  an  increase  in  sales  ranging  from  226  tons  to 
5779)  while  all  show  an  increase  in  price  ranging  from  56  cents  to  $2.24. 

The  sale  of  brands  containing  an  excess  of  5.0  per  cent,  of  potash  was 
practically  eliminated  in  1916  but  shows  a substantial  increase  during 
1917.  At  present,  indications  are  that  more  potash  will  be  available  for 
the  1918  fertilizer  trade. 

To  illustrate  the  variation  in  prices  which  have  prevailed  since  the 
war  began  the  following  summary  of  average  spring  and  fall  prices  for 
classes  available  is  published. 


Class  of  fertilizer 

Average  retail 

1916 

1 price,  dollars 

1917 

Spring 

Fall 

Spring 

Fall 

1. 

Acid  phosphate,  20  per  cent,  available  phosphoric  acid 

20.00 

22.33 

27.00 

2. 

Acid  phosphate,  18  per  cent,  available  phosphoric  acid 

24.00 

23.06 

19.27 

23.00 

3. 

Acid  phosphate,  16  to  18  per  cent,  available  phosphoric  acid— 

19.72 

20.60 

18.77 

22.30 

4. 

Acid  phosphate,  14  to  16  per  cent,  available  phosphoric  acid— 

20.02 

18.66 

18.07 

22.20 

5. 

Acid  phosphate,  less  than  14  per  cent,  available  phosphoric 

acid __ _ 

18.00 

7. 

Acid  phosphate  and  potash,  (K2O),  1.0  to  2.5  per  cent 

24.78 

22.84 

25.25 

26.70 

8. 

Acid  phosphate  and  potash,  (RoOO,  9.. 5 to  5.0  ppr  cent. 

31.50 

32.33 

30.75 

9. 

Acid  phosphate  and  potash,  (K2O),  5.0  to  7.5  per  cent 

29.80 

37.62 

14. 

Acid  phosphate  and  untreated  rock  phosphate 

22.00 

21.00 

22.94 

15. 

Ammoniated  acid  phosphate 

23.04 

24.04 

23.14 

28.17 

16. 

Complete  fertilizer,  nitrogen  below  0.5  per  cent 

26.13 

25.34 

26.09 

29.99 

17. 

Complete  fertilizer,  nitrogen  0.5  to  1.0  per  cent 

26.79 

23.69 

26.86 

31.26 

18. 

Complete  fertilizer,  nitrogen  1.0  to  1.6  per  cent 

32.24 

21.96 

26.70 

35.00 

19. 

Complete  fertilizer,  nitrogen  1.6  to  2.5  per  cent 

31.14 

28.89 

31.94 

37.64 

20. 

Complete  fertilizer,  nitrogen  2.5  to  4.0  per  cent—  __  — 

30.13 

29.50 

29.75 

21. 

Complete  fertilizer,  nitrogen  4+  per  cent. _ 

120.00 

23. 

Peruvian  guano 

165.00 

24. 

Complete  fertilizer,  (K2O),  below  1.0  per  cent.  

26.45 

23.80 

24.54 

28.31 

25. 

Complete  fertilizer,  (K2O),  1.0  to  2.5  per  cent.  

27.17 

25.20 

26.84 

31.54 

26. 

Complete  fertilizer,  (K2O),  2.5  to  5.0  per  cent. 

32.99 

33.76 

33.10 

38.83 

27. 

Complete  fertilizer,  (K2O),  5.0  to  7.5  per  cent. 

49.45 

31. 

Raw  bone 

33.50 

31.79 

32.33 

36.42 

32. 

Steamed  bone _ _ 

28.34 

29.77 

32.31 

34.15 

33. 

Ammoniated  bone  

29.67 

30.33 

32.00 

34. 

Precipitated  bone  ___ 

34.00 

37. 

Bone  and  potash _ _ _ _ 

27.00 

27.44 

26.00 

30.50 

39. 

Tankage  _ _ _ _ 

33.13 

30.00 

33.56 

51.67 

40. 

Tankage  and  potash 

27.33 

41. 

Basic  slag _ ___ 

21.50 

25.00 

42. 

Rock  phosphate  ___  _ ___  

5.08 

7.12 

~7~.89 

7.78 

43. 

Rock  phosphate  and  low  grade  slag  _ 

28.65 

30.00 

45. 

Nitrate  of  soda  

82.50 

75.00 

51. 

Tobacco  stems  _ _ 

40.00 

44.50 

40.00 

53. 

Dried  manure  __  _ 

29.38 

100.00 

28.70 

60.00 

55. 

Garbo  tankage  _ 

16.15 

19.00 

56. 

Muck  or  peat  _ — 

37.00 

22 


PURCHASING  FERTILIZER 

The  necessity  for  conservation  in  all  practical  affairs  at  the  present 
time  leads  us  again  to  emphasize  the  important  fact  we  have  been  endeav- 
oring to  impress  upon  purchasers  of  fertilizer  for  many  years,  namely, 
that  low  price  per  ton  does  not  necessarily  and  in  fact  rarely  ever  means 
low  price  per  unit  of  plant  food.  Economy  and  profitable  results  in  the 
purchase  and  use  of  fertilizer  demand  that  the  purchaser:  (i)  decide  upon 
the  plant  food  or  foods  required  by  the  soil  and  crop,  and  purchase  such 
plant  food  or  foods,  and  no  other;  (2)  decide  upon  the  form  in  which 
such  plant  food  or  foods  should  be  used;  (3)  purchase  the  plant  food  or 
foods  in  the  form  desired,  at  the  lowest  price  per  unit  of  plant  food  and 
not  on  the  basis  of  cost  per  ton. 

COMPARISON  OF  STANDING  OF  MANUFACTURERS 

Those  desiring  to  compare  the  relative  inspection  standing  of  the 
various  manufacturers  are  respectfully  referred  to  Tables  II,  III,  IV  and 
VI.  The  first  three  summarize  the  results  of  the  inspection  and  should 
always  be  considered  in  conjunction  with  Table  VI,  which  contains  the 
details  from  which  the  summaries  are  compiled. 

Purchase  from  companies  which  maintain  their  guarantees. 

REPORT  OF  INSPECTION  MADE  IN  1917 

The  inspectors  of  the  State  Chemist’s  Department  visited  every 
county  of  the  State  in  the  spring  and  fall  of  1917  and  secured  1390  sam- 
ples, each  county  being  represented  in  the  inspection. 

In  the  spring,  781  samples  representing  422  brands  and  67  manufac- 
turers were  secured  in  225  towns  of  the  330  towns  visited,  and  in  the  fall 
609  samples  representing  351  brands  and  67  manufacturers  were  secured 
in  168  of  the  220  towns  visited.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  use  of  the 
word  tozvns  in  this  connection,  means  that  not  only  the  town  itself  but 
surrounding  territory  was  inspected. 

Four  hundred  fifty-one  samples  are  omitted  from  record  in  this  bulle- 
tin. These  samples  represent  the  work  of  the  inspector  referred  to  on  page 
9.  It  was  shown  on  investigation  of  information  brought  to  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Department  that  in  certain  cases  the  inspector  in  question  had 
failed  to  follow  in  all  respects  the  official  instructions  as  to  methods  of 
sampling.  The  inspector  was  immediately  dismissed  and  although  there 
was  no  reason  to  believe  that  his  failure  to  follow  instructions  applied  to 
any  large  number  of  samples,  yet  in  order  that  there  might  be  no  possi- 
bility of  any  samples  being  reported  which  might  not  have  been  repre- 
sentative of  the  shipments  from  which  they  were  drawn,  all  samples  taken 
by  this  inspector  were  withdrawn  from  official  record.  This  leaves  919 
samples,  the  analyses  of  which  are  reported  in  this  bulletin. 


23 


The  919  samples  reported  in  this  bulletin  were  divided  as  follows: 


Class  of  fertilizer 

Spring 

Fall 

Total 

1. 

2. 

3 

1 

4 

10 

1 

11 

3. 

52 

35 

87 

4^ 

14 

10 

24 

7. 

11 

5 

16 

8. 

2 

2 

10 

10 

14. 

1 

4 

5 

15. 

Ammoniated  acid  phosphate  __  _ _ 

138 

142 

280 

16. 

Complete  fertilizer,  nitrogen  below  0.5  per  cent 

72 

69 

141 

17. 

Onmplpte  fertilizer,  nitrogen  0.5  to  1.0  per  nent. 

113 

59 

172 

18. 

Complete  fertilizer,  nitrogen  1.0  to  1.6  per  cent.  _ _ 

14 

4 

18 

19. 

Complete  fertilizer,  nitrogen  1.6  to  2.5  per  cent.  _ 

49 

14 

63 

20. 

Complete  fertilizer,  nitrogen  9.5  to  4.0  per  eent. 

2 

2 

24. 

Complete  fertilizer,  potash  below  1.0  per  cent.*  __  

42 

22 

64 

25. 

Complete  fertilizer,  potash  1.0  to  9.5  per  pent.* 

171 

118 

289 

26. 

Complete  fertilizer,  potash  2.5  to  5.0  per  cent.* 

34 

6 

40 

27. 

31. 

Complete  fertilizer,  potash,  5.0  to  7.5  per  cent.* 

3 

3 

Raw  hone 

3 

19 

22 

32. 

Steamer!  hone 

8 

18 

26 

33. 

Ammoniated  bone  . __  

1 

1 

37. 

Rone  anri  potash 

1 

2 

3 

39. 

Tankage  _ _ __  _ __  _ __  __  

5 

3 

8 

42. 

Rock  phosphate - _ _ 

6 

4 

10 

43. 

RopV  phosphate  anri  low  grarie  slag 

2 

2 

45. 

Nitrate  of  soda __  _ __ 

1 

1 

51. 

Tobacco  stems  __  ...  _ _ _ __ 

1 

1 

53. 

Dried  manure  _ __  

8 

1 

9 

55. 

Garbo  tankage  _ _ 

1 

1 

Totals . __  _ 

525 

394 

919 

* Not  included  in  totals 


Manufacturers’  guarantees,  names  and  addresses  of  persons  from 
whom  obtained,  and  detailed  results  of  the  analyses  of  the  samples  above 
summarized  will  be  found  in  Table  VI,  which  shows  the  manufacturers’ 
promises  and  how  they  were  kept. 


Summary  of  Inspections  for  the  Past  Eighteen  Years 


Year 

Number  of 

samples 

reported 

Number  equal 
to  guarantee 
in  every 
particular 

Number  equal 
in  value  to 
guarantee 

Number  within 

10  per  cent . 
of  value  of 
guarantee 

Total  number 
equal  and  with- 
in 10  per  cent, 
of  value  of 
guarantee 

Number  not 
within  10  per 
cent,  of  value 
of  guarantee 

Number  with 
one  or  more 
ingredients 

20  per  cent,  be- 
low  guarantee 

Number  with 
one  or  more 
ingredients 

30  per  cent . be- 
low guarantee 

Number  with 
one  or  more 
ingredients 

50  per  cent,  be- 

1900 

468 

76 

206 

99 

305 

163 

214 

* 

* 

1901 

592 

281 

469 

85 

554 

38 

103 

* 

* 

1902 

679 

335 

564 

98 

657 

22 

112 

* 

* 

1903 

674 

286 

492 

139 

631 

43 

138 

* 

* 

1904 

643 

248 

451 

148 

509 

44 

122 

65 

21 

1905 

734 

312 

528 

158 

686 

48 

148 

77 

21 

1906 

879 

374 

642 

176 

818 

61 

136 

64 

25 

1907 

793 

265 

481 

210 

691 

102 

177 

75 

29 

1908 

901 

391 

683 

171 

854 

47 

134 

51 

8 

1909 

969 

417 

720 

215 

935 

34 

138 

52 

12 

1910 

1118 

441 

834 

242 

1076 

42 

169 

75 

9 

1911 

1095 

527 

896 

189 

1076 

19 

98 

22 

2 

1912 

1220 

636 

1034 

175 

1209 

11 

63 

18 

3 

1913 

1204 

714 

1021 

178 

1199 

5 

41 

12 

4 

1914 

1396 

727. 

1152 

239 

1391 

5 

51 

14 

2 

1915 

1368 

684 

1145 

214 

1359 

9 

92 

31 

6 

1916 

1367 

870 

1183 

168 

1351 

16 

102 

40 

6 

1917 

919 

622 

830 

76 

906 

13 

60 

22 

5 

Totals 

17019 

8206 

13331 

2966 

16297 

722 

2098 

618 

153 

low  guarantee 


24 


Summary  Comparing  Inspection,  Spring  and  Fall  Samples,  1917 


Spring 

Fall 

Spring 

per 

cent. 

Fall 
per 
cent . 

Tear 

per 

cent. 

Number  samples  reported  __ 

525 

394 

57.1 

42.9 

Number  equal  to  guarantee  in  every  particular 

354 

268 

67.4 

68.0 

67.7 

Number  equal  to  value  of  guarantee __ 

467 

363 

89.0 

92.1 

90.3 

Number  within  10  per  cent,  of  value  of  guarantee 

31 

25 

9.7 

6.3 

8.3 

Number  equal  and  within  10  per  cent,  of  value  of  guar- 

antee  __ 

518 

388 

98.7 

98.5 

98.6 

Number  not  within  10  per  cent,  of  value  of  guarantee 

7 

6 

1.3 

1.5 

1.4 

Number  with  one  or  more  ingredients  10  per  cent,  below 

guarantee  _ __ 

81 

71 

15.4 

18.0 

16.5 

Number  with  one  or  more  ingredients  20  per  cent,  below 

guarantee  

26 

34 

5.0 

8.6 

6.5 

Number  with  one  or  more  ingredients  30  per  cent,  below 

guarantee  _ . 

9 

13 

1.7 

3.3 

2.4 

Number  with  one  or  more  ingredients  50  per  cent,  below 

guarantee 

2 

3 

.4 

.8 

.5 

Number  less  than  $1.00  per  ton  below  value  of  guarantee.. 

37 

15 

7.0 

3.8 

5.7 

Number  $1.00  to  $2.00  per  ton  below  value  of  guarantee 

11 

10 

2.1 

2.5 

2.3 

Number  $2.00  to  $3.00  per  ton  below  value  of  guarantee 

2 

2 

.4 

.5 

.4 

Number  $3.00  to  $4.00  per  ton  below  value  of  guarantee 

2 

1 

.4 

.3 

.3 

Number  $4.00  to  $5.00  per  ton  below  value  of  guarantee 

3 

1 

.6 

.3 

.4 

Number  $5.00  to  $6.00  per  ton  below  value  of  guarantee 



1 



.3 

.1 

Number  $6.00  to  $7.00  per  ton  below  value  of  guarantee 

1 

.2 

.1 

Number  $7.00  to  $8.00  per  ton  below  value  of  guarantee 

1 

1 

.2 

.3 

.2 

Number  $12.00  to  $13.00  per  ton  below  value  of  guarantee.. 

1 

.2 

.1 

Number  $1.00  or  more  per  ton  above  value  of  guarantee 

368 

281 

70.1 

"nT 

70.6 

Number  above  value  of  guarantee  per  ton  _.  . ...  ..  ._ 

458 

354 

87.2 

89.8 

88.4 

Average  deficiency  per  ton  “Within  10  per  cent  of  value 

samples”  dollars 

.71 

.97 

Average  deficiency  per  ton  “Not  within  10  per  cent  of 

value  samples”  dollars 

6.24 

4.06 

The  preceding  summary  shows  that  the  1917  inspection  compares 
favorably  with  past  inspections,  especially  as  regards  the  percentage  of 
samples  “up  to  guarantee  in  every  particular,”  there  being  67.7  per  cent, 
as  compared  with  64.1  per  cent.,  the  previous  high  record  in  1916. 

Compared  with  the  inspection  of  1916,  that  of  1917  shows  better  re- 
sults as  regards  samples  up  to  guarantee,  67.7  per  cent,  against  64.1  per 
cent. ; samples  “equal  to  value  of  guarantee,”  90.3  per  cent,  against  86.9 
per  cent.  The  number  of  samples  less  than  $1.00  per  ton  below  value  of 
guarantee  and  the  number  $1.00  or  more  per  ton  above  value  of  guarantee 
were  decidedly  better  in  the  1917  inspection,  and  manufacturers  of  fertiliz- 
er should  be  credited  for  the  high  standard  they  maintained  in  1917,  when 
it  is  considered  that  they  were  forced  to  manufacture  their  products  under 
extremely  adverse  conditions  caused  by  the  shortage  of  raw  materials, 
labor,  burlap  bags,  lack  of  adequate  number  of  freight  cars  and  transpor- 
tation, and  extreme  shortage  of  sulphuric  acid. 

While  in  the  past  years,  the  fall  inspection  has  been  superior  to  the 
spring  inspection  of  the  same  year,  no  such  difference  exists  in  the  1917 
inspection.  Both  spring  and  fall  inspections  were  very  similar  throughout. 


25 


FERTILIZER  MAP 


TABLE  I. — Summary  of  Inspection  on  the  Basis  of  Composition,  Guaranteed,  Found  and  Retail  Values 


26 


8 8 g g 8 g 88 


^ & £ k & 

53  53  53  8 3 


(M  CO 

liJ, 


8 8 S88S888  1888 

OQ  5 P COW^^COON  1 d O O 
CO  LO  CO  CO  ^ ^ LO  CO  ICOCOH 

8 8 §£8S3^g^ 


a gal-o  .£©02 

a m cs 03  g a ^2-2^ 

Q T<  +5  03  G ” 03  G5  ft! 

n^oo  0 O s_  G Q 

a ft  ft 


3 8 & 

ci  w ci 

+ + I 


+ ++ 


<N  cS  C0l§inMO3l-HC>&Ht<ina0O03( 

ed  ed  © MNMHdd©H<oddioeqoqdH 

+ + + | + + + + | + + + + + + I I + | 


siunop  aSBjaAB 
‘uoj  iad 
aaiid  jib  jay; 


in  (N  cm  cp  in  co  os  < 


88 


i><55-*<o6Ln88c§o8SSg8s8 

co©inedo305©"i>©in©eoc3 
eo eo  e<5  eo  <m co  i>  ■«*  co  1-1 


pun 


in  co  co 


>infti>in^inaooocoinco 


8 


CO  cvl  <M  CO  ■ 


8 S S 


8 0 co  Tji 

o co  lo 

£ ss  ss 


1 os  oa  <N  h*  in  • 


1 m in  os  m co  o ns  1 1 1-1  00 
iccoirHCDNOcd  1 1 cd  oi 


paajuB 

-jBn£) 


1 00  m © © 03 1 


r- < M v-N. 

ft!  0 « 
ftw 


pun  Oil 


OS  CO 

d d 


00  CO  rH 

rH  CO  CO 


p994.II  *6 


LO  CO  05  CO  O 

rH  O O rH  rH 


O O CO 

r-H  NN 


O CO  CO  (N  O 


rO  O bX)^ 

a-s^si 

“ o T3  > n 
^■S'S53  ft 

ft  03  M 


punoy 


CO  CO  CD  r*  rH 
00  CO  tH  (M  00 


co  in  co  tM 

in  05  i-H  rH 


HMOH<CO 

oirHoodoo 


paajuB 

-jBnQ 


O OS  O 

8 5 53 


O O 
LO  O rH 


O O LO  OC  1> 
X>  |H  Ci  l>  00 


,q  £ S5  S-t2 

go^-s  *§ 

f?  M 3 a M o 

o Wo  * g M- 

Ph  ® o a " 


punoy 


<N  CO  C<1  OS  os 
H O H Cl  CO 


paajuB 

-jBno 


oinwoo  1 1 iO  1 1 1 ionoo 

rH  © rH  CO  ID  l I IH  I l I IIOHO 


bo 

2S 


^ <0 

o. 


punoy 


00  O O CD  co  •>#  00  O N H 1 I^OOCO 
NHHOHMHCldlfl  I llfl(N<M« 


paajuB 

-jenQ 


05  00  05  t~  T*  <0  in  O HJH  CO  1 IINOOOO 
ddddHMHNO'#  I I in  rH  rH  cci 


saiduiBS 

jo  jaquin^j 


03-rt  03 
ft  « ft  G ft 


03  03  03 

ft  g a g ft 

co  O W O CO  O co 

ooooooo 
a-g  ag  a.c 

G ft  cfi  ft  c«  ft  tr.'  ft 

O Q ^ 

p<*0  _ _ 

<1  <!  <5  <1 


o iq 
M !m 


ag 

o.-s 

a 

ft  „ 

g 

cd 

.S  N 


o "o 
52^52 


> ^ ’I.) 

! ft  "3  ft  *3 


„ jy  ■ ^3  i'O  « 

• ft  .ft  -ft  I « •*-! 

45  to  P 0!  +5  M 

GOGoao  .2  S 

a3>,Oa3,aaj'a^Sgg 

ft  o ft *3  ft‘3  ft  n o o 
< < <3  <50 


O <U  CMU 

ft  ft  ft  ft 
o m o m 

HMK5N 

^000 

0 4H  +H+J 

-oino 

GnNin 


O O O O 

p,ftftft 


f— ( r-H 

OJ  Q)  a)  a) 
N N N N 


ft+J  ft+H  0.4J 

agasag 

o « o « o « 

000 


^ «s  *a  <a 

® ffl  <D  O o 
H+J+JH  "fl 
. 03  05  ® ® O 5 
+h  ft  a a a-0  g 

gaaaassg 

uoooosS 

OOOOKtB 


I O 
-o  ft 


03  a,  s3 

its 
o 


*3  S3 

■S  J3  « 
ft  ft 

X OQHH 

2 ° ° 
— G ®G  r 
G G bfi  ft  p,  <p 

|s-a««s 

5 o a o oS 


M cs 
G>! 


ga^ 

tn 

O !-<  o3 


01  CO 


l>  00  Ci 


LO  CO 


27 


Classification  of  Brands  which  Did  Not  Equal  in  Value  the  Guarantee 


Class  of  fertilizer 


Number  within 
10  per  cent,  of 
value  of  guarantee 


Number  not  within 

10  per  cent,  of 
value  of  guarantee 


3. 

4. 
7. 


16. 

17. 

19. 

31. 

32. 

33. 

42. 

43. 


Spring 


Fall 


Total 


Spring 


Fall 


Total 


Acid  phosphate,  16  to  18  per  cent,  available  phos- 
phoric acid  8 

Acid  phosphate,  14  to  16  per  cent,  available  phos- 
phoric acid  3 

Acid  phosphate  and  potash,  K2O,  1.0  to  2.5  per  cent.-  2 

Acid  phosphate  and  potash,  K2O,  5.0  to  7.5  per  cent.-  6 

Acid  phosphate  and  untreated  rock  phosphate 

Ammoniated  acid  phosphate 6 

Complete  fertilizer,  nitrogen,  N,  below  0.5  per  cent.—  8 

Complete  fertilizer,  nitrogen,  N,  0.5  to  1.0  per  cent...  8 

Complete  fertilizer,  nitrogen,  N,  1.6  to  2.5  per  cent...  7 

Raw  bone 

Steamed  bone  1 

Ammoniated  bone  

Rock  phosphate  2 

Rock  phosphate  and  low  grade  slag 


2 10  1 


1 


1 

2 

1 

4 

5 

6 
1 
1 

i 

T 


1 


1 

1 

1 


2 

2 


3 

4 
1 


1 1 


Totals. 


51 


25 


76 


7 6 13 


Classification  of  Brands  in  which  One  or  More  Ingredients  were  not  Within 

10  Per  Cent,  of  Guarantee 


Class  of  fertilizer 

Number  with  one  or 
more  ingredients  be- 
low guarantee 

Number  with 
two  ingredients 
below  guarantee 

Number  be- 
low guar- 
antee in 

10  to 
20 
per 
cent. 

20  to 
30 
per 
cent. 

30  to 
50 
per 
cent. 

50  or 
more 
per 
cent. 

10  to 
20 
per 
cent. 

20  to 
30 
per 
cent . 

30  or 
more 
per 
cent. 

2 in- 
gredi- 
ents 

3 in- 
gredi- 
ents 

3. 

Acid  phosphate,  16  to  18  per  cent, 
available  phosphoric  aeid 

2 

2 

1 

1 

7. 

Acid  phosphate  and  potash,  K2O,  1.0 
to  2 5 per  cent. 

6 

3 

1 

1 

4 

9. 

Acid  phosphate  and  potash,  K2O,  5.0 
to  7.5  per  cent. 

1 

2 

14. 

Acid  phosphate  and  untreated  rock 

phosphate 

1 

1 

15. 

Ammoniated  acid  phosphate 

18 

5 

"*1 

’T 

16. 

Complete  fertilizer,  nitrogen,  N,  below 
0.5  per  cent.  

49 

27 

10 

1 

1 

11 

2 

17. 

Complete  fertilizer,  nitrogen,  N,  0.5  to 
1.0  per  cent,. 

44 

12 

5 

2 

3 

11 

0 

18. 

Complete  fertilizer,  nitrogen,  N,  1.0  to 
1.6  per  cent.  

2 

19. 

Complete  fertilizer,  nitrogen,  N,  1.6  to 
2.0  per  cent.  

18 

6 

3 

5 

3 

32. 

Steamed  bone 

2 

33. 

Ammoniated  bone 

1 

1 

37. 

Bone  and  potash 

1 

39. 

43. 

53. 

Tankage  

Rock  phosphate  and  low  grade  slag 

Dried  manure 

2 

2 

3 

"2" 

2 

1 

— 

— 

— 

1 

— 

Totals _ _ 

152 

60 

22 

5 

5 

38 

8 

The  brands  listed  above  were  deficient  in  fertilizing  ingredients  as 
follows : 


Number  below  guarantee 


Ingredient 

10  to  20 
per 
cent. 

20  to  30 
per 
cent. 

30  to  50 
per 
cent. 

50  and 
over  per 
cent. 

Nitrogen  

15 

3 

1 

1 

Potash  . . 

47 

28 

15 

4 

Available  phosphoric  arid 

23 

6 

1 

Total  phosphoric  acid  

13 

1 

Totals 

98 

38 

17 

5 

28 


RESULTS  OF  INSPECTION 

A slight  decrease  of  0.3  per  cent,  is  shown  in  the  “equal  and  within 
10  per  cent  column”  when  compared  with  that  of  1916.  However,  there 
is  an  improvement  shown  in  the  percentage  of  samples  in  the  “20  per 
cent,  column,”  there  being  6.5  per  cent,  in  1917  compared  with  7.4  per 
cent,  in  1916.  When  compared,  item  for  item,  the  1917  inspection  shows 
a slight  superiority  over  that  of  1916. 

The  inspections  for  the  past  18  years  are  compared  in  the  following 


summary : 


Year 

Per  cent . 
equal  and 
within 

10  per  cent, 
of  value  of 
guarantee 

Per  cent, 
with  in- 
gredients 
20  per  cent. 

below 

guarantee 

Year 

Per  cent, 
equal  and 
within 

10  per  cent, 
of  value  of 
guarantee 

Per  cent, 
with  in- 
gredients 
20  per  cent. 

below 

guarantee 

Year 

Per  cent . 
equal  and 
within 

10  per  cent, 
of  value  of 
guarantee 

Per  cent, 
with  in- 
gredients 
20  per  cent. 

below 

guarantee 

1900 

65.2 

45.7 

1906 

93.1 

15.5 

1912 

99.1 

5.1 

1901 

93.6 

17.4 

1907 

87.1 

22.3 

1913 

99.6 

3.4 

1902 

96T 

16.5 

1908 

94.8 

14.9 

1914 

99.6 

3.7 

1903 

93.6 

20.5 

1909 

96.5 

14.0 

1915 

99.4 

6.7 

1904 

93.1 

18.9 

1910 

96.2 

15.2 

1916 

98.9 

7.4 

1905 

93.4 

20.0 

1911 

98.3 

8.9 

1917 

98.6 

6.5 

The  results  in  Table  I show  that  of  29  classes  available  for  com- 
parison, 22  equal  or  exceed  guarantee  in  every  particular  and  25  are 
above  the  average  guaranteed  value,  with  a range  of  38  cents  for  class  7, 
(acid  phosphate  and  potash  1.0  to  2.5  per  cent.),  to  $17.60  for  class  51, 
(tobacco  stems).  Four  classes  show  a lower  found  value  than  guaranteed 
value,  ranging  from  46  cents  for  class  43,  rock  phosphate  and  low  grade 
slag,  to  $5.73  for  class  27,  complete  fertilizer,  potash  5.0  to  7.5  per  cent. 
One  class  was  below  guarantee  in  nitrogen  0.1  per  cent.,  three  classes  be- 
low in  potash  respectively  0.1,  0.1,  and  1.1  per  cent.,  two  classes  below  in 
available  phosphoric  acid  0.5  and  0.1  per  cent.,  and  two  classes  below  in 
total  phosphoric  acid  6.1  and  1.8  per  cent. 

It  is  very  gratifying  to  the  State  Chemist’s  Department  that  in  the 
annual  summary,  it  was  necessary  to  print  only  one  company’s  record  in 
bold  type.  The  American  Basic  Phosphate  Company  had  50  per  cent, 
of  the  samples  inspected  not  within  10  per  cent,  of  the  value  of  guarantee. 
As  mentioned  in  the  discussion  on  page  17,  only  two  shipments  of  the 
material  of  this  Company  could  be  found  by  the  inspectors  of  the  Depart- 
ment and  hence  only  two  samples  were  taken  for  analysis. 

PRICES  USED  IN  SECURING  THE  COMPARATIVE  VALUES  OF 

FERTILIZERS 

Owing  to  the  uncertainty  of  prices  of  fertilizer  materials  in  the  open 
markets,  many  fertilizer  control  officials  have  omitted  fixing  values  for 
fertilizer  ingredients  the  current  year.  Since  these  values  as  used  by  the 
Department  are  not  for  the  purpose  of  fixing  the  commercial  values  of 
fertilizers  but  for  comparative  purposes  only,  it  has  been  decided  to  con- 
tinue past  practice  and  the  values  which  appear  later  have  been  decided  as 
fair  on  the  basis  of  present  market  condition  after  consultation  with  manu- 
facturers, agents,  dealers,  market  reports  and  information  collected  by 
the  inspectors. 


29 


These  values  will  not  give  the  prices  at  which  fertilizer  should  be  sold 
at  all  points  in  the  State  and  should  not  be  used  for  such  a purpose.  They 
are  for  use  in  comparing  the  value ‘of  inspection  samples  with  manufac- 
turers’ guarantees  and  can  be  used  advantageously  by  fertilizer  purchasers 
in  calculating  the  relative  values  of  similar  brands  offered  for  sale  by  dif- 
ferent manufacturers. 

The  following  prices  were  used  in  securing  the  comparative  values 
of  samples  reported  in  this  bulletin. 

Nitrogen,  25  cents  per  pound;  $5.00  per  unit. 

Potash  soluble  in  water,  30  cents  per  pound ; $6.00  per  unit. 

Soluble  and  reverted  (available)  phosphoric  acid,  six  cents  per 
pound;  $1.20  per  unit. 

Total  phosphoric  acid  in  bone,  tankage  and  basic  slag,  four  cents  per 
pound ; 80  cents  per  unit. 

Total  phosphoric  acid  in  rock  phosphate,  one  and  one-fourth  cents 
per  pound ; 25  cents  per  unit. 

Insoluble  phosphoric  acid  in  mixed  fertilizers  containing  nitrogen, 
two  cents  per  pound ; 40  cents  per  unit. 

Insoluble  phosphoric  acid  in  precipitated  bone,  four  cents  per  pound ; 
80  cents  per  unit. 

Insoluble  phosphoric  acid  in  mixed  fertilizers  containing  no  nitrogen, 
no  value. 

For  use  in  determining  the  comparative  values  of  fertilizers  inspected 
in  1918  the  following  prices  have  been  adopted : 


Per 

pound 

cents 

Per  unit 
or  per  cent, 
dollars 

All  fertilizers 

Nitrogen  (N) 

271/2 

30 

5.50 

Potash  (K2O)  soluble  in  water 

6.00 

Soluble  and  reverted  phosphoric  acid  (P2O5) 

7 

1.40 

Mixed  fertilizers  containing  nitrogen 

Insoluble  phosphoric  acid  (P2O3) 

2 

0.40 

Precipitated  bone 

Available  phosphoric  acid  (P2O5) 

7 

1.40 

Insoluble  phosphoric  acid  (P2O5) 

4% 

0.90 

Animal  by-products,  bone,  tankage,  etc. 

Total  phosphoric  acid  (P2O5)  

4^ 

0.90 

Basic  slag 

Total  phosphoric  acid  (P2O5)  

4V2 

0.90 

Rock  phosphate  (floats) 

Total  phosphoric  acid  (P2O5)  

W2 

0.30 

Rock  phosphate  and  low  grade  slag 

Total  phosphoric  acid  (P2O6)  

1% 

0.30 

Mixed  fertilizer,  acid  phosphate,  etc.,  containing  no  nitrogen 

Insoluble  phosphoric  acid 

0 

0.00 

30 


In  order  to  ascertain  the  comparative  value  of  any  fertilizer  in  1918, 
proceed  as  follows: 

In  acidulated  fertilizers  containing  nitrogen: 

Multiply  $5.50  by  the  guaranteed  per  cent,  of  nitrogen. 

Multiply  $6.00  by  the  guaranteed  per  cent,  of  potash  soluble  in  water. 

Multiply  $1.40  by  the  guaranteed  per  cent,  of  soluble  and  reverted 
(available)  phosphoric  acid. 

Multiply  $0.40  by  the  guaranteed  per  cent,  of  insoluble  phosphoric 

acid. 

Add  the  numbers  thus  obtained,  and  the  sum  is  the  estimated  com- 
parative value  of  a ton  of  the  fertilizer. 

If  no  nitrogen  is  guaranteed,  the  multiplication  of  40  cents  by  the  per 
cent,  of  insoluble  phosphoric  acid  and  the  addition  of  the  product  thus 
obtained  should  be  omitted. 

Example : If  it  is  desired  to  ascertain  the  estimated  comparative 
value  of  an  acidulated  complete  fertilizer  guaranteed  to  contain  2.0  per 
cent,  of  nitrogen,  2.0  per  cent,  of  potash  soluble  in  water,  8.0  per  cent,  of 
soluble  and  reverted  (available)  phosphoric  acid  and  2.0  per  cent,  of  in- 
soluble phosphoric  acid,  the  calculation  becomes : 

$5.50X2  = $n  .00 — nitrogen 
6.00  x 2 = 12.00 — potash 
1 .40  x 8 = 11 .20 — available  P205 
0.40  x 2 = 00.80 — insoluble  P205 


Estimated  comparative  value  per  ton — $35.00 

To  secure  the  estimated  comparative  value  of  a steamed  bone  guar- 
anteed to  contain  1.6  per  cent,  nitrogen  and  27  per  cent,  of  total  phos- 
phoric acid,  multiply: 

$5.50  x 1.6  = $8. 80 — nitrogen 
0.90  x 27.0  = 24.30 — total  P205 


Estimated  comparative  value  per  ton — $33.10 

To  secure  the  estimated  comparative  value  of  a so-called  Half  and 
Half  fertilizer,  when  same  is  composed  of  approximately  equal  parts  of 
acid  phosphate  and  untreated  phosphate  rock  guaranteed  to  contain  10  per 
cent,  available  phosphoric  acid  and  12  per  cent,  insoluble  phosphoric  acid, 
multiply : 

$1.40  x 10  = $14.00  estimated  comparative  value  per  ton. 

To  secure  similar  information  for  a high  grade  acid  phosphate  guar- 
anteed to  contain  16  per  cent,  soluble  and  reverted  (available)  phosphoric 
acid  and  2.0  per  cent,  of  insoluble  phosphoric  acid,  multiply : 

$1.40  x 16  = $22.40  estimated  comparative  value  per  ton. 

REFUNDS 

The  payment  of  refunds  does  not  wholly  meet  the  requirements  of 
the  law  and  the  State  Chemist  does  not  recognize  such  payments  as  nulli- 
fying the  right  of  any  one  in  the  State  to  call  cases  of  deficiency  in  all 
samples  to  the  attention  of  the  prosecuting  attorney. 


3i 


It  often  happens  that  manufacturers  make  shipments  into  Indiana  in 
good  faith,  supposing  same  are  up  to  guarantee  in  every  particular  and 
when  analysis  made  by  the  State  Chemist’s  Department  shows  the  mate- 
rial to  be  deficient,  the  manufacturer  often  makes  settlement  to  consumers 
on  the  basis  suggested  by  the  State  Chemist.  This  settlement  shows  that 
the  manufacturer  is  willing  to  protect  his  agents  and  customers  and  may 
indicate  that  he  has  no  intention  to  defraud. 

A few  manufacturers,  however,  refuse  to  refund  when  their  material 
is  found  deficient  and  the  State  Chemist  is  considering  the  advisability  of 
classifying  these  manufacturers  in  a separate  list  in  future  bulletins  of 
the  State  Chemist’s  Department. 

Refunds  in  1917  were  made  to  agents  and  consumers,  not  only  for 
fertilizer  found  deficient  in  nitrogen,  potash  and  phosphoric  acid,  but  in 
addition  shortweight,  poor  mechanical  condition  and  injurious  effect  on 
plants.  Ten  manufacturers  representing  20  shipments  refunded  $9,172.63 
to  agents  and  consumers  of  Indiana  in  1917.  Where  refunds  are  made  to 
agents  they  are  required  to  prorate  same  among  purchasers,  to  secure 
receipts  and  file  same  with  the  State  Chemist,  showing  that  proper  distri- 
bution has  been  made. 

SHIPMENTS  WITHDRAWN  FROM  SALE 

Darling  & Company — BB  7007.  This  shipment  was  withdrawn  from 
sale  on  April  10,  by  W.  O.  Henderson  & Co.,  Ft.  Wayne,  on  account  of 
absence  of  labels  and  was  certified  on  April  13  as  being  labeled  with 
official  labels  No.  6258. 

BB  7413.  This  shipment  was  withdrawn  from  sale  on  June  23  by 
Edw.  F.  Goeke  Co.,  Evansville,  on  account  of  absence  of  labels  and  was 
certified  on  July  5 as  being  labeled  with  official  labels  No.  6258. 

BB  7724.  This  shipment  was  withdrawn  from  sale  on  March  13  by 
Geo.  Rupp,  Milan,  on  account  of  deficiencies  of  0.1  per  cent,  potash  and 
1.5  per  cent,  available  phosphoric  acid  and  will  be  used  by  the  agent  on 
his  farm. 

Empire  Carbon  Works — BB  7762.  This  shipment  was  withdrawn 
from  sale  on  September  27  by  Carl  S.  Culbertson,  Vevay,  on  account  of 
being  misbranded  and  was  certified  on  October  3 as  being  relabeled  with 
official  labels  No.  6815. 

Federal  Chemical  Company — BB  6781  and  6782.  These  shipments 
were  withdrawn  from  sale  on  March  28  by  Waldron  Supply  Co.,  Wal- 
dron, on  account  of  disagreement  between  guarantee  on  sacks  and  official 
labels. 

Jarecki  Chemical  Company — BB  6687.  This  shipment  was  with- 
drawn from  sale  on  June  19  by  J.  Y.  W.  McClellan,  Auburn,  on  account 
of  0.6  per  cept.  deficiency  in  available  phosphoric  acid. 

Jones  Fertilizer  Company — BB  7630.  This  shipment  was  withdrawn 
from  sale  on  September  19  on  account  of  absence  of  labels,  and  was  later 
certified  as  being  labeled  with  official  labels  No.  5171. 

Louisville  Fertilizer  Company — BB  7628.  This  shipment  was  with- 
drawn from  sale  on  September  19  by  August  Arnholt,  Columbus,  on 
account  of  absence  of  labels  and  was  later  certified  as  being  labeled  with 
official  labels  No.  5987. 


32 


Swift  & Company — BB  6750.  This  shipment  was  withdrawn  from 
sale  on  March  24  by  Jacob  Finkle,  Warren,  on  account  of  absence  of 
labels  and  was  certified  on  April  7 as  being  labeled  with  official  labels 
No.  4871. 

BB  6925,  6926,  6927,  6928  and  6929.  These  shipments  were  with- 
drawn from  sale  on  April  4 by  John  A.  Sheets,  Kitchel,  on  account  of 
absence  of  labels  and  were  certified  on  April  17  as  being  labeled  with 
official  labels  Nos.  6370,  5369,  5174,  5791  and  6199  respectively. 

Virginia-C arolina  Chemical  Company — BB  7447.  This  shipment  was 
withdrawn  from  sale  on  August  31  by  F.  C.  Shera,  West  College  Corner, 
on  account  of  absence  of  labels  and  was  certified  on  September  6 as  being 
labeled  with  official  labels  No.  6500. 


Shipments  Returned 


Manufacturer 

Inspec- 
tion 
No.  BB 

Date 

Amount 

■returned 

tons 

Agent 

Armour  Fertilizer  Works 

Federal  Chemical  Co. 

7713 

6760 

Feb.  28 
June  11 

1 

Osgood  Hdw.  Co.,  Osgood 

C.  H.  Billman  & Sons,  Shelby ville 
A.  D.  Toner,  Delong 

Fpripral  Ohpmipal  On. 

7106 

Nov.  30 

Fpdpral  Chemical  Co. 

7107 

Nov.  30 

__A.  D.  Toner,  Delong 

Rasin  Monumental  Co.  __ 

6985 

Oct.  11 

1.75 

Fing-  Crain  Cn  , W^hash 

MANUFACTURERS’  COMMENTS  CONCERNING  VIOLATIONS  OF  RULING 

12A 

Federal  Chemical  Company — BB  6769.  Under  date  of  June  8,  Mr. 
Crady  advised  that  this  shipment,  found  in  the  following  table,  was  pur- 
chased from  one  of  the  large  bone  producers,  who  was  unable  to  account 
for  the  foreign  material  in  this  product.  They  advised  the  customer  to 
return  material  to  factory. 

Tennessee  Chemical  Company — BB  7657.  Mr.  Stewart  wrote,  under 
date  of  February  1,  that  this  shipment  was  purchased  from  Texas  and  he 
can  in  no  way  account  for  the  presence  of  sand,  unless  fiom  the  fact  that 
Fort  Worth  Raw  Bone  was  made  from  country  bones  which  had  been  col- 
lected from  the  plains  of  Texas  and  Mexico,  and  that  whatever  sub- 
stances outside  the  raw  bone  went  into  the  goods,  must  necessarily  have 
been  from  the  dirt  on  the  bones.  He  is  confident  that  no  filler  whatever 
was  used. 


Sold  Under  Names  Indicating  Use  of  Animal  By-Products  Only,  but  Containing 
Foreign  Materials  in  Violation  of  Ruling  12A 


Manufacturer 

Inspec- 
tion 
No.  BB 

Foreign 

material 

present 

Amount 
approx- 
imate 
pounds 
per  ton 

Agent 

Federal  Chemical  Co. 

Globe  Fertilizer  Co.  

Hirsh,  Stein  & Co. 

Hirsh,  Stein  & Co.  

F.  S.  Royster  Guano  Co 

f?wift.  Xr.  Cn . 

6769 

7560 

7653 

7635 

7377 

7500 

7657 

Sand 

Sand 

Sand 

Sand 

Sand 

[Salt 

j Gypsum.  _ 
[Egg  shells 
Sand 

62 

128 

136 

144 

130 

36  1 
66  [ 

J 

88 

C.  H.  Billman  & Sons,  Shelby  ville 
Boonville  Implement  Co.,  Boonville 

..Edwin  Wedeking,  Dale 

A.  Graves  Sons,  Tell  City 

J.  C.  Barrett,  South  Bend 

_ Abe  Bossert,  Brookville 

Tennessee  Chemical  Co.  

. Ben  Bolte,  Ferdinand 

33 


SAMPLES  SENT  TO  MANUFACTURERS— COMPARATIVE  RESULTS  BY 
MANUFACTURERS’  CHEMISTS 

Portions  of  16  official  samples  were  furnished  to  manufacturers  who 
wished  to  review  the  analytical  results  secured  by  the  State  Chemist.  On 
account  of  lack  of  space  only  a few  are  given  herewith. 


International  Agricultural  Corporation 


Inspection  No.  BB 

7000 

Guar- 

antee 

Indiana 

State 

Chemist 

Mfr’s 

Chemist 

Nitrogen,  per  cent. - __  - - 

0.8 

0.9 

0.86 

Potash,  soluble  in  water,  per  cent. _ 

1.0 

1.4 

1.28 

Available  phosphoric  acid,  per  cent.  . . _ 

10.0 

9.5 

9.25 

Insoluble  phosphoric  acid,  per  cent.  _ _ - __ 

1.0 

1.6 

Total  phosphoric  acid,  per  cent. 

11.0 

11.1 

Rasin-Monumental  Co. 


Inspection  No.  BB 

6783 

Guar- 

antee 

Indiana 

State 

Chemist 

Mfr’s 

Chemist 

Nitrogen,  per  cent. __  _ _ _ 

0.8 

1.2 

1.13 

Available  phosphoric  acid,  per  cent.  . _ 

13.0 

13.0 

13.15 

Insoluble  phosphoric  acid,  per  cent.  

Total  phosphoric  acid,  per  cent. 

1.5 

14.5 

2.0 

15.0 

1.95 

15.1 

Virginia'Carolina  Chemical  Co. 


Inspection  No.  BB 

6728 

Guar- 

antee 

Indiana 

State 

Chemist 

Mfr’s 

Chemist 

Nitrogen,  per  cent.  __ 

0.8 

1.1 

0.97 

Potash,  soluble  in  water,  per  cent. 

2.0 

1.9 

1.86 

Available  phosphoric  acid,  per  cent.  __  _ __  _ 

8.0 

8.8 

8.79 

2.03 

Insoluble  phosphoric  acid,  per  cent.  

2.0 

Total  phosphoric  acid,  per  cent.  __  

10.8 

10.85 

SPECIAL  INFORMATION 

The  potash  shortage  is  somewhat  relieved,  since  about  126,577  short 
tons  of  an  average  of  26.4  per  cent,  pure  potash  (K20)  were  produced 
by  manufacturers  in  the  United  States  in  1917,  this  being  over  three  times 
the  amount  available  in  1916  and  about  13  per  cent,  of  the  normal  con- 
sumption of  potash  in  the  United  States  during  the  years  immediately 
preceding  the  war.  The  average  selling  price  of  these  potash  materials 
at  the  point  of  shipment  was  $426.00  a ton. 

Indiana  consumers  are  fortunate,  in  that  brands  of  fertilizer  contain- 
ing 5-°  or  6.0  per  cent,  of  potash  was  sold  in  certain  sections  of  the  State 
as  opposed  to  the  3.0  per  cent,  potash  fertilizer,  which  seems  to  be  the 
limit  in  many  of  the  eastern  states.  Experimental  data  show  that  only 
small  areas  of  Indiana  soil  need  a high  per  cent,  of  potash,  and  the  mere 
fact  that  potash  is  short  does  not  mean  that  every  consumer  must  attempt 
to  purchase  potash.  Consumers  would  do  well  to  communicate  with  the 
Experiment  Station  and  ascertain  the  requirements  of  their  soils,  and  by 
adopting  the  most  approved  methods  of  cultivation,  crop  rotation  and 


34 

fertilization,  be  in  a position  to  fulfill  the  crop  requirements  of  the  country- 
under  war  conditions. 

The  State  Chemist  estimates  that  196,186  tons  of  fertilizer  were  sold 
in  Indiana  in  1917,  being  63,562  tons  in  excess  of  1916.  Of  this  amount 
42,609  tons  were  sold  as  acid  phosphate  with  an  average  guarantee  of  16 
per  cent,  available  P2Os.  The  equivalent  of  2325  tons  of  16  per  cent,  acid 
phosphate  was  sold  in  mixtures  as  acid  phosphate  and  potash;  1073  tons 
of  16  per  cent,  acid  phosphate  were  used  in  so-called  Half  and  Half ; 
50,865  tons  were  used  in  ammoniated  acid  phosphate;  40,948  tons  were 
sold  in  complete  fertilizer,  making  an  approximate  total  of  137,820  tons 
of  16  per  cent,  acid  phosphate  sold  in  Indiana  in  1917. 

Consumers  of  the  State  were  fortunate  in  that  their  orders  for  fer- 
tilizers were  in  the  hands  of  agents  and  manufacturers  in  plenty  of  time 
to  ofifset  delay  in  shipment  caused  by  labor  conditions  and  congested 
traffic,  so  that  very  few  instances  have  come  to  the  attention  of  the  State 
Chemist  where  consumers  failed  to  receive  their  fertilizer  in  time  for 
planting.  No  relief,  however,  as  regards  shortage  in  freight  cars  can  be 
expected  in  1918,  and  to  ofifset  delay  in  shipment  and  tie-up  on  freight 
lines,  the  consumer  will  do  well  to  get  his  order  in  early,  specifying  imme- 
diate delivery.  Manufacturers  are  expected  to  overload  freight  cars  10 
per  cent.,  which  means  that  a 30-ton  car  must  be  loaded  with  33  tons  of 
fertilizer;  a 40-ton  car  with  44  tons,  etc.  Dealers  and  consumers  should 
bear  this  in  mind  when  forwarding  their  orders  to  the  manufacturer,  thus 
enabling  the  shipping  plant  to  fill  the  orders  properly  with  a minimum  of 
inconvenience.  Wherever  agents  and  consumers  are  so  situated  that  they 
can  handle  fertilizer  in  bulk,  they  should  secure  quotations  from  the  manu- 
facturer for  bulk  shipments  as  the  supply  of  burlap  bags  is  very  limited 
and  manufacturers  or  agents  should  be  in  a position  to  quote  prices  $4.00 
or  $5.00  a ton  less.  Consumers  may  expect  to  receive  their  fertilizer  in 
1918  in  200  pound  bags,  as  indications  are  that  the  Government  will  desig- 
nate this  sized  container  as  a minimum.  Wherever  it  is  possible  to  handle 
fertilizer  in  bulk  shipments,  it  should  be  done,  in  order  to  conserve  sacks 
and  to  effect  a saving  in  the  cost  of  the  fertilizer. 

EXPLANATION  OF  TABLES 

In  considering  the  results  and  summaries  of  inspection,  it  should  be 
noted  that  in  the  case  of  deficient  samples,  manufacturers  were  given  10 
days’  advance  notice  and  opportunity  to  request  a portion  of  sample  and 
time  for  review  of  the  results  by  their  chemists. 

Table  I summarizes  the  results  of  the  inspection  of  samples  for  the 
year  1917,  according  to  composition. 

Table  II  summarizes  the  results  of  the  inspection  of  samples  secured 
in  the  spring,  1917. 

Table  III  summarizes  the  results  of  the  inspection  of  samples  secured 
in  the  fall,  1917. 

Table  IV  summarizes  the  results  of  the  inspection  of  samples  for  the 
year  1917. 

In  Table  IV  manufacturers  having  20  per  cent,  or  more  of  brands 
inspected  “Not  zvithin  10  per  cent,  of  Value  of  Gziarantee,t  are  given  in 
bold  type. 

Table  V summarizes  the  results  of  the  inspection  of  samples  for  the 
year  1917  by  counties. 


35 


In  Tables  II,  III,  IV  and  V an  extra  column  showing  the  number  of 
samples  having  $1.00  or  more  excess  comparative  value  due  to  the  pres- 
ence of  excess  insoluble  phosphoric  acid,  has  been  made  necessary  by  the 
increasing  use  of  untreated  rock  phosphate  as  a makeweight.  In  reach- 
ing conclusions  regarding  comparative  values  as  shown  in  the  summaries, 
this  fact  should  be  kept  in  mind  and  the  analytical  results  in  Table  VI 
consulted. 

Table  VI  contains  the  details  of  the  inspection  of  samples  from  which 
Tables  I,  II,  III,  IV  and  V are  compiled  together  with  the  name  of  the 
manufacturer,  brand,  guarantee  and  found  composition  and  the  names 
and  addresses  of  persons  from  whom  samples  were  obtained. 

In  Table  VI  ingredients  guaranteed  i.o  per  cent,  or  less  showing  a 
deficiency  of  20  per  cent,  of  the  total  guarantee  and  ingredients  guaran- 
teed over  1.0  per  cent,  showing  a deficciency  of  0.3  per  cent,  are  printed  in 
bold  type.  If  deficiencies  are  shown  by  all  the  ingredients,  such  results 
also  appear  in  bold  type.  Total  phosphoric  acid  deficiencies  are  only  so 
marked  in  fertilizers  in  which  the  available  phosphoric  acid  is  not  guar- 
anteed. 

In  comparing  the  standing  of  manufacturers,  Tables  II,  III  and  IV 
should  always  be  used  in  connection  with  Table  VI. 

Table  VII  contains  results  showing  the  mechanical  condition  of  rock 
phosphate  samples.  All  siftings  reported  in  this  table  are  made  by  the 
dry  method. 

Table  VIII  has  listed  the  brands  of  fertilizer  certified  by  manufac- 
turers as  being  on  sale  in  1918.  The  registrations  being  permanent,  any 
registered  brand  may  be  legally  sold  at  any  time  without  regard  to  its 
publication  in  this  list,  provided  a correct  State  Chemist’s  label  is  attached 
to  packages  and  furnished  for  bulk  shipments  of  each  200  pounds  or 
fraction. 

ATTENTION— FERTILIZER  PURCHASERS 

To  cooperate  with  the  Experiment  Station  and  the  State  Chemist  to 
the  best  advantage,  observe  the  following:  study  the  Experiment  Station 
bulletins  as  to  plant  food  requirements  and  amounts  of  fertilizer  advo- 
cated for  your  type  of  soil.  Do  not  accept  any  fertilizer  unless  State 
Chemist’s  labels  are  furnished  as  required  by  law.  (See  reproduction, 
page  6). 

Consult  Tables  II,  III,  IV  and  VI  and  purchase  from  companies  which 
maintain  guarantees  and  do  not  have  brands  in  the  “Not  within  10  per 
cent,  of  value”  or  “20  per  cent,  of  value”  columns,  and  which  do  not  have 
frequent  bold  faced  figures  in  the  inspection  table. 

Note  that  prosecutions  for  deficiencies  are  not  a part  of  the  official 
duties  of  the  State  Chemist.  The  facts  are  given  in  the  fertilizer  bulletins 
(which  are  sent  free  by  the  Experiment  Station  to  any  citizen  of  the  State 
on  request),  and  it  is  for  purchasers  to  decide  whether  they  will  purchase 
of  manufacturers  whose  inspection  samples  are  below  the  legal  guarantee 
in  composition  or  show  carelessness  in  mixing  by  having  a large  number 
in  the  “20  per  cent.”  column,  or  cooperate  with  this  department  and  pur- 
chase from  manufacturers  whose  inspection  results  show  guarantee  uni- 
formly maintained. 

Having  decided  on  the  brands  of  fertilizer  desired,  place  your  order 
early.  Inasmuch  as  the  Government  has  included  fertilizers  on  the  pri- 
oritv  order,  cooperate  by  unloading  the  cars  promptly  upon  arrival. 


TABLE  II.— Summary  of  Results  of  Inspection  of  Samples  Secured  in  the  Spring,  1917 


36 


sOs<I  aiqrgosni  ssaaxe 
o;  anp  enpjA  jo  ajoni 
JQ  OQ'I$  gjiM  jaqnmsr 


noj  jad  aajuB 

-iBnS  jo  anjBA  aAoqB 
a join  jo  00'  1$  jaginn^; 


uoj  jad  aajuB 
-jBnS  jo  anjBA  Aioiaq 
00'S$  UBqj  ajoui  jagum^ 


uoj  jad  aajuB 
-jBnS  jo  anjBA  Avoiaq 
00'2$  oj  O0'f$  Jaqnmtf 


uoj  jad  aajuB 

-Jans  jo  anjBA  Aiojaq 
0Q‘J$  QJ  00 '8$  Jaguinj^ 
noj  jad  aajuB 
-jBnS  jo  anjBA  Aioiaq 
00'8$  QJ  0Q'g$  Jaquin^j 


O O O © © 03  O rH  © © >-(  o o © o 


£©«-*©©  H N © O H 1 


NrtHrt,,NHr,H  O3O303©e3©©rH©tno3T»<  CO- 


© © © © rH  © © © © © © © 


©©©©©©©©©  r-,  © © © © © © © C 


© © © ©03©©©©©©©  ©©© 


©©©©©©©©©  ©©©©©© 


© © © ©©©©©©©©©  ©©© 


©©©©©©©©©  ©©©©©© 


uoj  jad  aajuB 

-jBnS  jo  anjBA  Aioiaq 
00’3$  oj  00'I$  jaguin^ 


uoj  jad  aajuB 
-jBnS  jo  anjBA  Avoiaq 
O0'I$  UBgj  ssai  jagnintf 


aajuBjBnS  Aioiaq 
•jnao  jad  os  sjuaipajjgni 
ajoui  jo  ano  gjiAi  jagnm^r 


aajuBjBnS  Moiaq 

•jaao  jad  08  sjnaipajSui 
ajom  jo  ano  gjtA\.jaqnm\r 


o © © ©©©©©©©©© 


© © © © © © rH  © © © © © ©©©©©, 


03  © © © © © © © r-|  © rH  © ©©©©© 


©©©©©©©  ©©©©©© 


O © ©’  © 03  © © © rH  © rH  © ©( 


© © © rH  03  © © rH  © © © CO  ^ rH  © © 


© © © ©©©©©©©©©  0 c 


©©©©©©©©©©  ©©©©©© 


© rH  © © © rH  © © © ©©©©©©  rH  © © 


03©©  ©©©©©© 


aajUBjBnS  Mopq 

•jnaa  jad  os  sjnaipajSui 
a join  jo  ano  gjiAi  jaqnin^ 


aajnBjBnS  Aioiaq 

•juaa  jad  oi  sjuaipajSm 
ajotn  jo  ano  gjiAi  jagging 


aajuBjBuS  jo 

eniBA  jo  -jnao  jad  ot 
tiiqjiM-  jon  jaqinntf 


aajnBjBnS 
jo  anjBA  jo  'juaa 
jadot  nigjiAi  jaqtnn^; 


aajnBjBnS  oj 
anjBA  ui  [Bnba  jaginn^j 


© © ©eo©©©o3©©©  ©©©©© 


© CO  © rH  CO  © © © rH  © © © © 


© ©t~  © © © CO  03  03  © © 


03©©©©©©(MeO©©  © © 03  © © 03 


© © © ©eo©©©©©©©  © © © © 


©©©©©rH©©  © © © © © © 


03  © © © 03  © © © 03  © 03  © ©CO© 


©©rHCO©©rH©©  © CO  h*  rH  © © 


03  w ^ rH  CO  10  CO  03  rH  CO 03  rH  CO  © © rH  © © 03  © CO  © © ■ 


JBinaijjBd  AjaAa  ui  aaj 
nBJBnS  oj  iBnba  jaq'inn^ 


g «©rHQD©O3C0©rH  CO  © 03  rH  CO  © 00  rH  rfl  © rH  © CO  CO  © rH  b- 


pajjodaj 


SaidniBS  JO  jaqnrn^  8 flSl  8 COt-O3rHC0rHeOrH©GC>O3©  e0©©03i-H0> 


Q 


0\g  s 

_ So  rH  ^ r O W -a 
03  p,  03  r 03  o o 

• <D  M 


S O 

■§o 

CCrr 


m O 
P Pi 

JO  03 

s § 

■3^ 

.pi:" 

a p o 

03  P rH 

, a acL 

daa 


; £3  O £3  ^ p • o ^ 0s  . O 


So 
S >, 

« 03 

45 

o o® 
tSooO 


, 03 


• ^ 

3 o 
JtJo 

M u, 


a 


bicc 

<J  tH  <3  ^ ...  ,r  _ 

p ^ p "o  p p • ^ 

p p a p cpp.Hsp.13a  a>ppp^3noS2 

< < <i  <i  <jajpqooPQWW 


! O . p « a H bfi’S 

so 


0 5 P S 

SS  ®rr'H  & 


C 

PPpSOSOm*^  .3  O 35^) 

pppphPoooK  WWW®” 


37 


OOOOOOOOOOOOOrHOCOOrHOOOOO, 


in  os  eo  « oo  rji  i 


KNNHOWWHOlHSIfiH^OTlMNHHHaHINN 


© © © o o c 


©©©©©©©©©©^©©ftftftftftftft000^5 


.©©©©©©©©©o^ooooooooooooo© 


,©©©©©©©©©©^©©©©©©©©r-i©©©©©© 


© © © © © © © 


©©©©©©©©©©©©®©©©©rH©©©©© 


I©©©©©©©©  © © © © © © H © © © © © © © H © © © © © 


<N  © © © rH  r-l  <M 


0©0©©©©©©N©©NN©©,itH©©©H© 


,©©©©©©©©©©©©rH©©©©©©©©©©©©©  i OJ 


©©<N©©©©©©©©©0®0©<NI©©©©©0©©©©©©© 


©©<N<M©©r-l©©©©©©©r-lr-n?3©©©©©©<NiH©©©©© 


l©rX©©©©©©©e<]C<J'^©©rH&qM©t'CO©©©rH© 


l©©©©©©©©©©©©©i-l©r-(©©©©©©©©©©C>©© 


©©©©r-(T-l(M©©©©©©©©'-<eO©©<N©3©©©M©©©>'-,0 


©r-l'<iieii©©©<MM(Mi-IO0©r-l©t~lOfr-r-l©rH©(N©rH(M©i-ICCM 


i©r-l©00TH©e<l©(Mi-ll>©i-l©'^©lftr-l©©©<Ng5r-(r-lgJr-l( 


■<j^eo©©l>^^eolNr^oO©r-l©oo©t-I-l1-^eo©<Nr^?^<M^'-|T:t,e,5 


M 

\6  6gO 

50 


5.2C 

.mO« 

2 ^ o.  .9 


o cp  -r0  _£• 


a?  o' 


g 

9 

03 1 
9| 
0.2 
M > 

30 
co  a 


a ■ a tj 
cSfi  o 
2 

.So,  - 
00|oj 

•>  ft  Z • 

w ~ o " 


9 


2S°6p2.1g! 


ZJ  ^ 

•2  r3  03  E2  o 

?s.g  s-2.s 


■2|c  -S  q §”5®^  £ 2?  a*1* 

« >-n  gh  g w,2  a>  n aJ  S §3  rn  S-|  a S 2 

go  t a sfs|  fef>  ps  o-s-s^iisslfe  s s-glff 

2 £©a  = a5';?9-£""SH«i5'8  b-S  '3  s as  -r  p “ ers  " © 

ft  hjt-Sl-sWWftSSS^kPHf^KWMKl^MGOCQGQGQ&H&^^^F 


TABLE  III. — Summary  of  Results  of  Inspection  of  Samples  Secured  in  the  Fall,  1917 


38 


S0R<I  9iqn[osui  ssaaxa 

0;  anp  aniBA  jo  ajoui 
jo  00'I$  qjiM.  jaquin^ 

O 

- 

© 

© 

0 

OOOOflHO©HO 

©©©©eo©©©© 

O ©rH© 

uoj  jad  aajuB 

-jBnS  jo  aniBA  aAoqB 
aioui  10  00’  1$  laquinx 

CO 

CO 

- 

© 

© 

tOOCOrHOqcOCOr-lCOCO 

CM 

COCOCMtO^OOCMrHtO 

<D  eo  © rH 

uoj  jad  aajuB 
-jbuS  jo  aniBA  Avojaq 

O 

O 

0 

0 

© 

©©©©©©©©©© 

OOOOOOOOO 

0 ©0© 

00’£$  truqj  ajoui  jaqum^ 

uo  j jaa  aajuB 
-jBnS  jo  aniBA  Avojaq 
00’£$  oj  00T$  Jaquin^; 

0 

© 

© 

0 

© 

©©©0©©©©©© 

©©©©©©©©© 

0 © © © 

uoj  jad  aajuB 
-jbhS  jo  aniBA  Aiojaq 
00’^$  OJ  00’S$  jaquin^ 

•0 

O 

0 

© 

© 

©©©©©©©©©© 

©©©©pH©©©© 

0 © © © 

uoj  jad  aajuB 
-iBnS  jo  anjBA  M.oiaq 
00’8$  OJ  00’2$  jaquin^i 

0 

© 

© 

0 

© 

©©rH©©©©©©© 

©©©©©©©©© 

© © © © 

uoj  jad  aajuB 
-jbuS  jo  anjBA  Avojaq 
00’S$  OJ  00-I$  Jaquin^j 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

©©©©©©©tH©© 

©©©©©rH©©© 

© rH  rH  © 

uoj  jad  aajuB 
-jboS  jo  aniBA  Avoiaq 

© 

© 

© 

0 

0 

©WN©©©©©rl© 

iH©r-l©rH©rH©© 

© © C © 

00 '1$  uBqj  ssaj  jaqum^ 

aajuBjBnS  Avoiaq 
• juao  jad  os  sjuaipa jSui 
ajora  jo  auo  qjiM  jaqum’w 

© 

© 

0 

© 

© 

©©©©©©©©©© 

rH©©©©©©©© 

© © ©O 

aajuBJBnS  Avoiaq 

•juao  jad  os  sjuaipajSui 
ajoui  jo  auo  qjiAuaquinK 

O 

© 

0 

0 

- 

©©1— <©©©©r-l©© 

rH  © © © © rH  © © © 

© © © © 

aajuBJBnS  Aoiaq 

•juao  jad  03  sjuaipajgut 

O 

© 

© 

0 

0 

©©i-Hi-<rH©©<Nl©i-H 

HOOO^HMOO 

0 

1 

0 

ajoui  jo  auo  qjpw.  jaqiun’w 

aajuBjBnS  Avoiaq 
•juao  jad  01  sjuaipajSui 
ajoui  jo  auo  qjiM  jaqcunj^ 

- 

- 

© 

© 

0 

(MOCMOtOCM^OrH 

© (M  <M  © 

aajuBjBns  jo 
aniBA  jo  ‘juao  jad  01 

O 

© 

© 

© 

© 

©,-!©©©©©©©© 

0©00rH©©©© 

© © © © 

uiqjiM.  jou  jaquin\T 

aajuBjBns 
jo  aniBA  jo  ’juao 
jad  01  uiqjiM  jaqtunfci 

O 

© 

© 

0 

© 

<©3i— 100©©©©, — li — 1© 

H©H©rHrHrH©© 

© rH  rH© 

aajuBJBnS  oj 
aniBA  ui  iBnba  jaquinj^ 

IO 

00 

- 

© 

- 

COOi^^HOOCOH  O 

CM  t— < rH 

6 

4 

11 

2 

jBinoijjBd  AjaAa  ui  aaj 
-UBjBnS  oj  iBnPa  jaquin^ 

to 

- 

0 

- 

COOOOOCOCOt*<MX>(M 

HtH©COlft-3<t~OOrHOO 

© M © © 

pajjodaj 

saiduiBS  jo  jaquin^ 

Lf5 

00 

- 

© 

- 

CO 

t>©lftlOg5©^JrH© 

CO  to  CM  (N 

- 

5 


<ZJ 


c3 


’ o 


H 


p 

« ^ 
id 


<S  £ 

.«  O 

a 

< 


g-o 

2^ 


- 2s  d g 

.2  ^ .2  W .2  1 « 0 .2  « 

SgS^,  S^S^ScS 

O)  r O)  flj  Q)f 

o^osologoo- 

"fe  rH  ^ r^  <U„0 
tc3a53O>03r1«^« 

^ o >.El  h g hQ 

1 Sfl  5^5  ,§5  ^ 3^*,^ 
pssfjsSs.s'Sis^ghofe 

US  un  “ a « i>  u.E3  S n 
’£  03  75  m ’35  73  p 73  2 ’33  35  *J3  33 

bflGG  be  os  be  a bo  bor-<  os  ■?  •%  23 

cjf-toSSJoS'SoScoOSWoS^i—,, 
O^ogoUoDU  .Oa'gfe 

few  feo  feS  fe£  feS  fe  § * a 

a a a a a as«3 

<i5  <$  «1  <3  <5  <!<5WW 


© 0)0 
3 
~ 


O ®3 

2o2 

- o £ . 
. w n 

6*  Bz  0 

f-i  aj 


o° 


os 


o ® 
02= 


2 ,©  6 
= 20 


' 2;  . a 
£«»2 
r£. 


QJ 

6^ 
U CO 


N C 

Qrt 

*§fi 

3 © +> 


2^iI^°a.s^aa.i-§'66^ 

Oj  ®SnS  - —1  w A4  -S3  ?,  U 3!  fefl^H 

Wo^SsScSq’Sm"  fe'^NHlB 

« ^ ^ © "2  5 ^ ^ © « 5 g '-g  o'  5 
^i-a^^ogo^^olfe^^wg 

S©  Jj  2 S®  1 1 SO^'g  g0®  bo_-~  | 

slslc3|<Jl|||g|2|i<J£§'S 


■ 4J  ^ 

!®Sc 


39 


0 © © © rH  © O O © o O © O © CO  rH  © O © 


©©rH©©©©© 


<j,  MClMlft  lOHHOtlHTjUOHHiniOOHHINaHO^HHOOt)® 


c>  ©OHO  ©rHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 


© © © O © rH  ©©©©©©©©©©©©  O © © ©©©©©©  © 


© ©©©©  ©©©©©©©©©0©00©©©©©©©0©©© 


© ©©©©  ©©©©©©©©©©©rH©©©©©©©©©©©© 


© ©©©©  © (M  ©©©©©©©©©©©©©  rH  ©©  CO  ©©©©  © 


©©rH©  © rH  ©©©  rH  ©©©©©©©©©©  rH  © rH  ©©©  ©O 


O © © © ©<?5©©©©©©©©©©©  ©©©©©©©©©©© 


© ©©rH©  CO  ©©©©©©©©©  rH  ©©©©©©©©©©©  © 


©©CO©  00  © © © © H © © © © © rH  © © O © O © H O © © © 


© rH  lO  rH  05  ©©  rH  © rH  ©©©©  rH  CO  ©©©©  rH  © rH  ©©©  © 


© © rH  © © CO  ©©©©©©©  O©  rH  ©©©©©©©©©©©  © 


©©rH©  © 05  ©©©  rH  ©©©©©©©©©  rH  rH  © r*  ©©©©  © 


I©1CN  ©©  rH  © rH  r*  00  rH  rH  ©03  CO  CO  rH  05  © 05  CO  Ci  CO  05  © CO  © 


© ->#00  05  ©.  CO  CO  rH  00  rH  r*  QD  rH  rH  ©©©  CO  rH  rH  05’ 


! 05  rH  CO  © 00  © 


I © tr  ©©  rH  © i— I © 00  rH  rH  ©©  05  CO  rH  05  © •>*  CO  05  CO  05  © 00  © 


o 

.O 

O a 


• 5 -H 

<5  « 

2 So 

O 

xfl  S3 

p a 
o o 
ftz: 
5 83 
§ 


p 

O 6 i 

rrO  ' 

g n: 

an  h 

a.s 

Sa°® 

r.„W 


6 o 

oo 


So 
ft  .w 

on 

02  ft 

M 

>>  ® 


Wfio 

®g 

©i  '5  o | aj 

r rn£r- 


f.  o ^ 

■r  U S C L,  H i. 

=3  «3  ft  ® S ® 5 

£ ^ a ph  •-  =3  'g 

. . O $ 


00.2 


-H 

«g|| 

©P  ft  II 

^ a a 


a;  S 


.MW 


0|°'Ep-3*2 

O <2  O .2  83  « fc 

ft  3 M ft  ft  ft 


- 

P r®  « 3 

a aft  o -3  oj 

| a g.3 

■sSmooJS 


n ^ r 

rgQs 


> 
“ft 
Eh  to 


o a 
o.a 


go 

p . 

So 

ftO 

.SP 


3 CJ  tyC 

2-~  a 


P S3 
os  a v 

ft  qp  ^ 

Sift 

oOH 

O 


■ 6 83  "3 
’O  Sfg 
o 


• - 1 1 

^ .a  -3  p "S  a a 

p 03  c3  qj  O p O 

«Wo2 


ll’S 

8 £ 

<1  C . M O 
,t+2P 

a §5 

COOJCO 


•r  fl  « 
& « 3 
1 co  ch  Eh 


a 

Ise 

js-s 


TABLE  IV. — Summary  of  Results  of  Inspection  of  Samples  Secured  in  1917 


I 

4C 


s0"d[  aiqrqosm  ssaoxe 
oj  eap  eniBA  jo  gjoui 
jo  oo'i$  qjpa.  aaquinH 

© 

tH 

© 

© 

o 

OOCOONHONHnfi 

© rH  © © © © =g  © © © © 

UOJ  J9d  99JUB 

-jranS  jo  onpA  eAoqB 
©join  io  oo-i$  jaquinrc 

Oi 

<M 

Oi 

03 

- 

r- 

03 

© 

NOOIHH^COOCOOI^H 
t*  T-i  rH  03 

OOOH<OJSOOJHCONHN 
rH  CO  H 03 

UOJ  J9d  99JUB 
-JBnS  jo  9iqeA  Aiojgq 
00‘S$  treqj  9join  agquinj^ 

O 

© 

o 

© 

© 

OOrHOOOOOOOOO 

©©©©©©©©©rH©© 

UOJ  J9d  99JUB 

-iBtiS  jo  9njBA  Mojgq 

00 'S$  oj  0O‘?$  J9quin>j 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

©©<N©©©©©©©©© 

©©©©©©©©©©©© 

UOJ  J9d  99JUB 

-jbuS  jo  erqBA  Avojaq 
00'X$  oj  00'8$  J9quin^ 

O 

© 

o 

© 

© 

©©©©©©©©©©©© 

OOOOOOrHOOOOO 

uoj  i9d  99jub 
-jbuS  jo  enjBA  Avopq 
00'8$  oj  00'3$  J9quia^; 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

©©?— t©©©©©©©©© 

©©©©©©rH©©©©© 

UOJ  J9d  99JUB 

-jenS  jo  arqeA  Mopq 
00’S$  oj  00 '1$  J9qumjs 

(M 

© 

o 

© 

© 

©©©©©©©©C3©rH© 

©©©©©©©©rH©©© 

UOJ  I9d  99JUB 
-JBnS  JO  srqBA  Avopq 
00'T$  n^qj  SS9I  jgqinn^: 

O 

© 

© 

© 

© 

©CM-5j(©©©©©^Hr-li-l© 

rH  00  rH  © © rH  CO  © © 03  © © 

99JUBJBliS  AVOpq 
'JU9D  J9d  os  SJU9ip9lSni 

j ajoui  jo  9uo  qjiAv  jgqinn^ 

© 

O 

© 

© 

© 

©©©©©©©©©©©© 

rH©©©©©©©©©©© 

99JUBI'BnS  AVOJ9q 
•jnao  i9d  08  sjugipajSnt 
9Joni  jo  auo  qjiAv  jaqinnjsf 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

©©CQ©©©©©(M©©© 

rH  © © © © © rH  © rH  03  © © 

ggjuBjBnS  Avopq 

•JU9D  jgd  02  sjU9ip9jSnr 

9 join  jo  auo  qjiAv  jaquinfsi; 

- 

© 

© 

o 

© 

©©■5j(rH©i-H©©+t<©i-t© 

rH©©©©©i>©<5<l©©© 

99JUB JBnS  AV0I9q 
•jn90  J9d  oi  sjnaipgjSm 
9join  jo  9uo  qjiAv  jaqinn’^ 

03 

03 

© 

o 

© 

©CMr- lr-l©r-liHrHlf5C0'^© 

(N<MCO©©©lrt©Tfl>©© 

99jasjBnS  jo 
anp?A  jo  -JU90  J9d  oi 
uiqjiAY  jon  jgqmnfj 

O 

© 

© 

o 

© 

©*— CO©©©©©©©©© 

© © © © © © rH  © © rH  © © 

99JUBJUnJg 

JO  9UJBA  JO  'jn9D 

J9d  oi  ntqjiAi  j9qmn>j 

03 

© 

© 

o 

© 

©^!©©©©©©eOi-l(NI© 

HCOH©©HH(©HN©0 

99JUBJBnS  OJ 
enjBA  ui  jBnbo  jgqmnjsj 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

- 

e> 

CO 

- 

CiONHHNrtlHNrtlCDH 
IO  rH  tH  03 

Ci  CO  CO  rH  00  O H H H Ci  H <M 
rH  tO  rH  03 

JBjnOIJJBd  itj9A9  m 99J 
-nBJBnS  oj  jBnba  jaqtnn^ 

03 

CO 

8 

- 

o 

CO 

rH 

OiOHOHHCOOHO 

CO  rH  03 

N©tOHQOOC3HHNHH 
CO  tH  rH 

p9JJOd9  J 

S9idniBS  jo  jgquin^; 

IO 

CO 

8 

- 

o 

CO 

- 

OMQHHN^HOtOOOH 

CD  rH  H H 03 

OCOI>tH0DtHCDrHtO03TH03 
tH  rH  tO  tH  CO 

s 


o so 


: w ■ w m w 

1 o « pq  o 

SBlslbS. 


„ C3  „ 


CQ  O 

r fl.: 


OfeOtJOao|C5ao.6  aj§ 

i-1  i-H  ^ — 1 Sr-cO  o *2 


sos«sgi3i)),  a 

B»s«sa'S«g^g^|§t)ggfig-g 


i h vj  . ^ • cj 


os  a 

also!1 


« S «n  « a “ « ®-S  c o S 

f-c  G sSm'S^mP’S  ® Cj  53  •§  00  a 
in)H  6oOJ  ba  cs  fcfl  bo  bod3  M u o+3 

◄ 8<«JgH|£WSiS«S£5 

.5? a « 

9 +->  2 H C3 

03  CO  03  ^ 


o « 

O d ' 
»°  o 

« ®o 


ja^ld 

13° 


^ o 
J axq 


■»-t  • ca 

w O o a)  - , 

'S'§0§g^: 
6o1|^68|o 


^0o-S^gT,'3oO°3 


tuc^^O 
.2  e 


_ w 2 ,N  _N 


«>03ticS?c3.C(S5caW»t,_^  O 2 rt  v.kJ!  -|-)  t 

" oiiSs  2 .S.S  « « « .£  o^Jg  s bcS  § 2>w  £ £ S|,g 

fcfflSuQSOeo^cu^fcS  ’ft<J  ft 

s a a a a a sg'3§'§5.9§s  .-3a  ~ 

«3  <3  «i  <3  <3  <3  «j3<3pqpqpqOOOQOWW 


*s£8 

n<8 


•r:!3  O 


o a 


<dg5~ 


q 053. 73  2‘"  Ui— i +'’■ 

Sca!i+jraw.aJ!P^2’2~I3fI 

hfc/SE.g  ®*r  " 

.73  ui 


n o g ^ ^ . 

S' 


5 a3  cu  'B  _ w 

s 1111*1: 

S > d c3  C3  oS  ( 
tq  H ^ Ph  Ph  F»h  ft  O C 


4i 


o HNHOHQ  ©i-H©©i-H05,©©0©©©©©©©<Ni-l©©©i-l!N©eO©OJ©©OOC©i 


05  03  CO  rH  03  IN  Jt—  00M©C0fli01MOHHO05i — INH^^OO^IMNCOH^CQl^N  03  © 3s-  H W 05 

rlrl  rH  I— I i-H  rH  03  rH  rlrlN  03  03  03 


o OOOOOO  OOOt-hOOi-hOOOOOOOOOOOt-IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 


© OOOOOO  r-i  O O O O O 1-1  O O O O O O O O o O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 


o OOOOOO  O O O O O O O o OOOO  O OO  o rH  O OO  oo  O OO  © 1-H  o oo  o o o o 


O OOOOOO  © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © rH  © © © © © © © © ih  © © © © © © 


O OHHOOO  ^ O O OO  O <NI  O O O OO  o O O O O I-If-I  O O o I-I  O O O eo  T-l  o o o o o o 


O OMtKHOi 


eoOOOOOi— looooooqooocotooojot— iooooi— io 


O OOOOOO  O O rH  O O O 03  O O O O O O O O O O O rH  o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 


O OOOOOO  O o 03  I-I  O eo  o o o o o o o o o o o eo  © O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 


O OlMiHOOO  O O CO  TH  O CO  CO  o O O O O I-I  O O O rH  rH  CO  O O O O O O O O 03  O O O O O O 


OM^iOOM  HHi|i|)0NraMOHOOOHOOONCi)»OOOHMWO'|iilOOC>OHO 


O OOOOOO  I-I  O O I-I  O O 03  O O O O O O O O O I-I  O <N  O O O O O © O O O O o o o o o 


O O^IIOHOH  © O o I-I  1-1  I-I  W O O O O O I-I  O O O O I 


OOOMMOOOMOOOOHO 


© 05  o t- r-i  eo  © eo  rH  'iii  oo  © o © eo  eo  03  r-i  i— i 03  03  i— i © t-  05  03  co  -h  00  03  00  eo  © © ~n  i— 1 eo  © 

rH  (N  rH  rH  i-l  03  rH  rH  03  <N  HH  H <M  03  CO  CO  CO 


OOOOHIN  o 00  i-H  eo  eo  © 00  eo  t- 1 


l-H<05001>eClrH05rHrH03©(MCO©i 


2EH 

OQ  o 

.2  *** 
x c3 


EhoqO 


O i q 
Q 

. o 

. .0 

•«oM 

i?°§ 


62% 

h. 


•pCC  m 

3)  -2  a,' 

a « ios 
C5M  WWW 


o C3  bo  1 r* 

£&<  \S6 

.S  g© 
— ■ a 
o 


Hpq 

do ^ 

oo° 

fH  fH  OJ  • 

a)  ai  m ' 

N3 


« o o o5*« 
■a  O.W  « w a 1 
2 >M  o' 
to 


g a a 
§*.2 
T3  X}  +H 

a a a « o 


1 • - 7-  x, 

;flga 


OS 

3 a >5  2 

H C3  MS 


S-a 
£ 2. 
o +s  W 


*6 


f-»  a; 
02  S3 
Nr;, 


ft 

0-2 
M m 

s:e 

«Q 
“a 
b $5 

S-P 


3fl3 
Si  05  O 

WWW 


«o 

O 03  w 

o 


Wc n 


WX3  g 

lo** 

00  £ r 

w WGQ 

rfeW  . 
~-go  O 

i-S®  0Q  rt 

a^-2  Q.a 

a a-S  cs1^ 

2 0 g1  33  . 

g«2  00  h 


w,3 
« « 
ga 

d 

d°° 

0-3  3 

. (h  N 

pg 

a3U 


*d 

<30 

bo  (h 

.2  N 


!w  a 


05  a, 
M 34 
a»  a, 

S S s w w w w 


:PH3 

1 . ^3 


a*  O r-1 


a,  O 


l .2  -a  T3 9 

H «5  33  1-3  >5.0 

: s a ® o 3 
hB5«KKK 


335; 

I a o. 

t»cea2< 


; os 

O (3 

O a 


30 

T)  „ 

2 o 
WO 


. . OS  — 1 

o o bo  g 

00£  § 

°6 

°8  -2  ^ ^ 
.H2  03  02  o»  CD 

a S *3  fl  ? -H  .2 

3 2 « 33  00-  g 
jq  a;  *r;  o P +->  -m 
qPh  2 £<3  3 £ 

w <D  S3  I?’'*1 
(U  03  J3  O rW  W 
S3  4h  o • a 

OJ  O w 03  03  fl 

|S^:sa^| 

a | -g  2)'S  S '3 

ehehp££££ 


r-. 

S N 


TABLE  V. — Summary  of  Results  of  Inspection  of  Samples  Secured  in  1917,  by  Counties 


42 


1 9Oc<I  ©iqniosui  ssaaxa 

oj  anp  anpjA  jo  ajotu 

JO  O0'I$  qjiAi  jaqmnM 

©hoooohhmiohhohOhohnon^conmocmih^nwh 

uoj  jad  aajuB 
-JBnS  jo  anjBA  aAoqa 

1 00'I$  ucqj  ssaj  jtaqranj^ 

U)«OHHISNH®£llNHHIfll6WHHOO10H^O6N«OHH<S'1IH» 

uoj  jad  aajuB 
-JBnS  jo  an[BA  aAoqB 
ajoui  jo  O0'I$  jaqnxn^ 

COCO<M(MrH'^<MCD05'^^Jt^O<NrHCOCOtn)ODC<lCOT-lir50’rti05C^rHOOC<I^CX)CX)50 

rH  rH<N  1ft  riHHH  rH 

uoj  jad  eajue 
-jBnS  jo  anjBA  Mopq 
; 00'S$  nnqj  ajotn  jaqran^ 

CXMOOOOOOOOOOOOiHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrHi-iOO 

uoj  jad  aajuB 

-JBnS  jo  anjBA  Avojaq 
OQ‘S$  oj  00'f$  Jaqmn^ 

oo©oooooooi-ioooc>oooooc>o©oooooooc>i-hoc 

uoj  jad  aajuB 
-jbhS  jo  anjBA  Avojaq 
00J#  oj  O0‘S$  Jaquinj* 

©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©rH©©©©T-H©©©©©©©  © © © © © © 

uoj  jad  aajuB 
-JBnS  jo  anjBA  Avojaq 
00'8$  oj  O0’S$  jaquinM 

©©©©©©©©  ©©rH©©©  © rH  © © © O © rH  © © © © © ©©©©©©© 

uoj  jad  aajUB 

-JBnS  jo  aniBA  Avojaq 
00’S$  OJ  00' 1$  Jaqranjsj 

©(N©©rH©©eq©©©©©©©<N©©©©rH©©©©©©©rH©©rH©© 

uoj  jad  aajuB 
-JBnS  jo  anjBA  Aioiaq 
00’I$  uBqj  ssaj  jaquin^ 

© rH  © © © © © © rH  © © © © © © CO  (N  © © © © N 03  © © © rH  © © CO  rH  rH  © ©0 

aajUBJBnS  M.ojaq 
•juao  jad  os  sjuaipajSm 
ajoui  jo  ano  qjL\i"jaqum& 

©N©©©©©©©©©©©©rH©©©©©©©©©©©©©0©©©0© 

aajnBJBnS  Aiojaq 

•juaa  jad  08  sjnaipajSui 
ajoui  jo  ano  qjtAY  jaqtunKr 

0H<OOO0©OO0lN©©O(NHOOO©©HO©CNC0OHrilN©0 

aajnB  JBnS  Aiojaq 
•juaa  jad  oz  sjnaipajSui 
ajoui  jo  ano  qjiAv’jaqninN; 

©■H<©©©©OOJ©ON©©PIM«0©(NH©HIN©HOMH©HHIN»HeC 

aajUBJBnS  moiaq 
•juao  jad  oi  sjnaipajSui 
ajont  jo  ano  qjiAV  jaqnin^ 

HP©0©H0NH©'#0HNM'H'NNH©'Hlt>©H0^(N0(NTMC^HCC 

aajnBJBnS  jo 
aniBA  jo  'juaD  jad  01 
uiqjiAY  jou  jaqninjsj 

©(M©©©©©©©©(N©©©rHrH©©©©©©©©©©©©©©rH(M©© 

oajuBjBnS 
jo  anjBA  jo  'juaa 
jad  oi  uiqjiAV  jaqmn^ 

© CO  © © rH  © © 03  rH  © © © © © © © 03  © © © PI  CO  03  © © © rH  © rH  CO  rH  03  © 03 

aajuBjBnS  oj 
aniBA  ui  jBnba  jaqran^ 

lrt00  03COP3!Or*l>inTH©©rHaQ©©©tr000300030>©-#03r*rH©eOeOrJ<©© 
03  rH  03  I-  rH  rH  rH  rH  rH  M rHN 

jBjnoijjBd  ^jaAa  ui  aaj 
-ubjbuS  oj  jBnba  jaqranj^; 

W(MCOHC500W(MHl>^N(MCONlftOi(MONOOO<N'^(NNN 
<M  03  LO  r-irH  (N  n H 

Number  of 
samples 
reported 

lejOJ, 

U5MNC0M©H'05gTjl0[)aHgJ>NrjN00lNginHO-H(NinHO<0U5®Or 

©©©©©C0©®3rHrHt~©COM©0£>©Ht<©©CO©^tr®3trO3rHC0rH©03  00© 

Suijdg 

in^NMMM^NWMHaiOlI3t'O5HMaMMNU>l>e0NiaM©J>WlO!ONM 
rH  CO  rH  rH  OHr 

County 

Allen  

Bartholomew  _ ___ 

Benton  

Blackford  _ 

Boone  

Brown  

Carroll  __ 

Cass  

Clark 

Clay  

Clinton  

Daviess  

Dearborn  

Decatur  

Dekalb  . 

Dubois  

Elkhart  

Fayette  

Floyd  

Fountain  

Franklin  

Fulton  . 

Gibson  

Grant  . _ 

Greene  

Hamilton  

Hancock  . 

Hendricks  

Henry  

Huntington  

Jackson  

Jasper  _ 

Jefferson  

Jennings  

43 


inONOO»OOOOOOOlOOiflOHCiOONOM«!DlflHOOHHMOHHOHOMM^HOO 

108 

eoOHNrlNONOOOHNOi'MNMOHNONMMMH^NOHHHOOOeoOHOO^^NCOO 

a 

5 1 649 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOi-lOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrH 

"1 

OOOOOOC>OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC>OOOOOOOOOOOOOOi-iOOOOOOO 

CO 

oooooooc>ooooooooooooooot-iooooc>oooooooooc>oooooo 

rHOOOOOOOOOOOi-HOOCJOr-IOOrHOOOOi-IOOOOtNOOOOT-IOOOOCXMOrHO 

OOHOONOOOOOONOOMHOOOOHOMMTjMClOHHONOOHOOOT-'OH.'Ofl 

s 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrHOOOO<pOOOOi-lOOC)OOOOOOe>00 

in' 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrHOlMOOOOOOOOOi-lOOOOOOOOfMOOO 

03 

03 

OC>©©©rH©©©©©©rH©©<NI©rH©©<N©<NC<l©rHrH©©©©©rH©0©rHC<l©©C>'Hti©©rH 

§ 

NONOOHOCOOOO'#HHiiOMOONHlflMNMflOHMHOHHHOlOMOOMiaSHM 

03 

LO 

©OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOr-tOOOOCOOOOCOOOOOrHOOOOOON 

CO 

g 

_ 1 

8 

a 

5> 

HOHOOfNOOOOOOCOOOMHHOOHHO^MlflMOOHMONOONOOOHOMHHH 

©H*t--e0eOl>rHme«3H*iJ>H»ir-iQ0;Dffl)H}<rH-^i<N«O©eo<N<3iHti«Ot-0QlNCOl«©©<Nt-(>3  00rHe0b-COe<ltrt> 
r-(  r-1  rH  CO  i—l  HrtMlSHH  HHNH  HHH 

M^®HMT)iHMHN®'!tl®0'ii^e<50MN100Sl>«ONC>(NK510HL01fl00  05  N5SINt'HHMOH!Dni 
^ rH  CO  03  03  r“H  rH  rH  rH  rH  rH  t-H 

t-Tjioocoeo05THifleO'#i^'^i^ioo«o^mc^'^iccit-NM©gJ05©t-QOcoOimej©giOiC»5  05r-i^it^Oi«ciO© 

NOCOC4'<!iOifl(MOO'jiOOinjnOinHOinHlflfflNI>OiMHMOMXinHlflON005N<OHOH 

$ 

CO 

lrt-<jiaOC<i©lftiH©i-l'^it-©-)ibOr-lt-mt-C<5c<I<Nr-IOO©lrt<M©-rtU>©OJ(MTjllOi-lTtieOI>r-llO©eONC005 
rH  r-1  1M  r-l  r-1  r-l  rH  rH  rH  rH 

525  | 

Johnson  - ___  --  

Knox  __  __ 

Kosciusko  ..  — 

Lagrange  __  

Laporte  

Lawrence - 

Madison  ..  _ _ _ 

Marion  _ 

Marshall  _. __  _ — 

Martin  

Monroe  _ _ — - 

Morgan  - — _ - 

Newton  _ . _ 

Noble  _ . 

Ohio  _ __ _ __  ___  

Orange 

Owen  _ 

Perry  _ 

Pike  - - __ 

Porter  

Posey  _ 

Pulaski  . 

Putnam  . - 

Ripley  

Rush  . _ . . 

Scott  _ ___ 

Shelby  

Spencer  _ _ 

St.  Joseph _ _ _ __ 

Starke . 

Steuben  _ _____  

Sullivan  __  __  ...  

Switzerland  

Tippecanoe 

Union  ._  _ _ 

Vanderburg  _ _ _ _ 

Vermilion  ___  

Wabash 

Warren  _ _ 

Warrick  ______  ___ 

Washington  _____ 

Wayne  _ 

Wells  __  

White  

Whitley  

Totals I 

TABLE  VI. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Fertilizers  Collected  in  1917 


44 


&?■ 


•juao  aad 


o. 

§2 
A O 
Hi  ctf 


•41100  jad 

‘aiqniosuj 


CO  CO  00  Oi  N H ^ ( 
H H H H N (N  M i 


00  05  05 

dod 


HNO 


(M  CO  tO  CO  H 
H rH  t-H  t— I C<1 


05  c<]  to 

OHH 


•}uao  aad 
‘pa^jaAaj 
puB  aiqniog 


OO®ONO>WC0Ot'0>t'ONr~OIMOHOOO^OOO'#'>J(O'#'#OONt>ONI 

tO^dt'tOt'ffltOt-OOOOaOOMUnPldHOHOHdHCOOONdNtOMNdHHodH 


•}uao  aad  ‘aai'BM.  ui 
aiqnios  ‘osX  ‘qsB^oj; 


OOHfflOi 


•juao  aad 


odoho^o* 

OHHHNNl 


aoNtooocoooooifflooooaooHOo 

HNNHHHNHHHHHHOHHrH 


•}uao  aad 
•aAijo-e  puB  aiqn 
-los  aa^-BAi.  ibjoj. 


1 1> 

! d d d 


i J>  os  J> 

odd 


•}uao  aad  ‘oiubS 
-ao  ajqniosui 
ja}-BM.  aApoBuj 


<M  <M  CQ 

odd 


co  oo  oo 

NHN 

odd 


•juao  aad  ‘oiu'bS 
-jo  aiqniosui 
ja}BA4.  aAijoy 


HOlO 

h*  rH  hji 

odd 


•}uaa  aad 
‘oiubSjo 
aiqnios  aareM 


©coh* 

odd 


(OHNfflO 


iflioMot- 

OrHrlH 


^ COOOIOO’  iCqtrtrH 
NNININN  I ^ CO 

ddddo  i o o o 


o o o o o 


i j>  co  in 

! d d d 


^ 00  GO  C0  1 

d o d d i 


•^uao  aad  ‘s^bs 

BIUOUIUIBpUB  Sa^BJ^ 

-iu  ui  aiqnios  aa^B 


Hioa 

<N  rH  O 

dod 


in  05  n io  o 


rtl  CD  CO  IHHN 

ddddo  'odd 


l«  CO  rH 

odd 


09 


P . . 

03  hQ  T3  rO 

^ p p a 
£o  ° ° 

tUOHH  HI  «4H 


13  13  13 
p p p 
3 3 3 
o o o 


i ■ P 
13  13  S3  13 
p p 3 0 
33  P 2 P 

O O -3  q 


w w — 'O  13  S3  'P  t;  'fl 
CC^3fl^333 

r-rjCJppCjrjrjpwp 

003003000?,0-U- 

hjQHH  «H  fcuO  H-H  «H— I «4— I SlJOHH  bfiHH  Stfl 


! 13 

I'd  l-o  | ! 

i j i-o  i 

i i *o  i i i 

is 

j 09  | © j 

i i i|  i 

: i|  i i i 

! p 

ip  ! P 1 1 

! ! i p i 

! ! p ! ! ! 

'O' 


bfl. 


0B,0B,00000  B,0005,00 

h(lu_l  CUO HH  *4H  HH  HH  *+H  MHI  <H  HI  QflHH  HH  •- 


aa  'OM  tioi}oadsui 


3 - 

a:  a>  « 

m A =3 

p w > 


p PI 
rS  ^ 

S3 


bjo  Pi 


p S' 
© .2  • 
V S 


c 
a 

Ora  <5-5  3 


C0I>CMlOtO00O5C0 
riWf  " — - - - - 

00  o ■ 

CO  t-  J 


a © © i 


ooPh  t>  'di^ 


OH^  l ^ ■ 

00  CO  CO  I to  • 

Jt>»  t— I J>»  I 00  1 


© n 'd 

^ n o 

2 8 o 

3 pi 


© 02  'T' 

£3  S 

0OO 


O 33 
o w 
6d3 


o£ 


. ^ CM  CO 

O ^ C5 

LO  CO  CO 

> i>-  |>  J> 


P P3 
os  a:  > 


^ p£ 

09  +* 

4^03 

w Ah  pq 


■3  0h 
1 X {h  0 
i 09  35  c3 


i>  00  00  I CM  JO  CO 


•ON 


COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOJC- 


toioio. 
co  co  co  < 

JO  l>  JO  c 

i£ioIoIOLOLOtocbcbcbcbcocbcbcbcb< 


> co  co  co  co  co  c 


m s 

5 « 

O u 

00  X 


EH  . 

„ o 

&a 

g° 

ft.„“ 

II 

Cr>  fl  , 


0’S 

o 

2^ 

p ti 


Pm 

’o  E-s  a 

'3  09  £ O W t>> 

<1  5 3 g ^ 

cj  • ^ a 2 ^ a 


a .vg 


0§saro.3§ 

o''  fn  c3  ‘ 

opq^i-s 


53  Ph  > 

^PQ 


0 d t 


o, 

g§l 

QQ  W „ 


bjo  © 
<!(=< 


S o 

gw 


P =t=  IS  * * 
O 

W 


y c r 

CQ  03 

catd 

•2 

{H  fl  fl 


•<  p o 

QCC 


“■si 

2S-2S 


09  o 

T3  cc 


J3  09  . 

0^5 


« C3 


ft  -aM 
<1M«2 

. rr 

1-9  JqL  § 

T3  9h  . s . O # ^ 

W Ph  O r*  <J  1-0  "S  Ph 


5 5** 
S.fi«o 


P fH 

0 5 

a § 

si 


p 

o 

a 

si 


o.2  >> 

G P >l  09 

Oi?r 


£l:^ 


|o 6 • 


Iw^Wod 

W|o 

o* 

aq 


09  ^ • 

P 3 

09  S3  , 

O'-sc 


O “P  <3 


P > 


J CO 


09  . 


fe’H 

be  c: 


„ - S 2 

g £ O tS  H9 
■“  M 


°§  = 


-J  W rn  W ~ . 

°M  I 


09 


^ Ah 

P * 

o 

pq 


. x R 

or  . . . . W'6i>  O 

-X  <3  Pd  pq  sq  id  ^ K <j  w 

o*  * o*  * 

pq  3Q 


P * 

O 

PQ 


* Sample  received  in  the  spring  4 Refund  (see  page  30) 

1 Purchased  from  W.  A.  Wilkey  5 purchased  from  John  H.  Gish.  Refund.  See  page  30 

2 Purchased  from  John  H.  Gish  6 Purchased  from  Sherman  Noblet,  Paoli 

3 Purchased  from  Culbertson  Bros.,  Vevay 


TABLE  VI. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Fertilizers  Collected  in  1917  (continued) 


46 


*^U90  J8d 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

a c 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

0°c 

•ftPn 

g-d 

•JU90  J9d 

OOOWOMNO^OOOOlO 

0 ^ 

0-*0®HW0®0® 

O 05 

0 co  0 eo  ■<* 

•9iqniosui 

r-ifOH(NH(M(NHHH(N(NO 

r-lr-l 

HHHNHHHHHH 

HO 

T-H  CO  CO  rl  CO 

ftj’S 
PU  c« 

•;u90  J9d 

0®000t'^0<00j>rjt0 

0 to 

ocooooooocooco 

O 05 

OHOOH 

*p0)J0A9J 

pu'B  ©iqnios 

GO  00  GO  GO  0 0 oc-o  oi  CO  C-0  CO  c<i 

06  00 

odoicocococctxjoooooo 

06  CO 

l>  00  to  tri 

JU99  J9d  ‘J9}BM.  UI 

1 0 0 

! ! O O O r- 

< 30  03  OH  C>  00 

1 1 1 O O O rH 

O rH 

O O 

inios  ‘osN  ‘qsBiOd 

1 r- 
1 

1 

l 1 I- 
1 1 

1 1 

< c 

> (N  <M  (N  rH 

1 1 1 (M  (M  (M  d 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

rHrH 

HH 

•JU99  J9d 

0 CO  00  CO  GO 

1-1 0 

000  00  H CO  00  00  03  00  O CO  03 

00  05 

°0  rH 

‘IB^OJ, 

NNOHO 

1 rH  rH 

OH  O r-l  1- 

1 rH  rH  rH  C 

> rH  r— 

< rH 

d d 

d i-i 

•^U90  a9d 

00 

8 

00  00 

0 

CO 

05  to  to 

i>* 

1 LO 

! to 

•gAijoB  puB  9iqn 

00 

00 

to  rH  CO 

00 

to 

1 to 

1 i> 

-108  J9^BM.  lB}OJ, 

rft 

rH 

d d 

d 

d 

r^r^r^ 

d 

rH 

! d 

1 d 

■}U99  J9d  ‘OIUBS 

(M 

<M  <M 

0 

r- 

rH  to  to 

05 

CO 

1 to 

1 to 

-jo  gjqniosui 

CO  <N 

<M 

03 

(N  CO  to 

CO 

l CO 

1 co 

J9JBAY  9AIJOBUI 

d 

d 

d d 

d 

d 

odd 

d 

d 

! d 

1 d 

•4U99  J9d  ‘OTUBS 

LO 

05  O 

CO 

rH 

HHCO 

to 

! rH 

1 to 

-ao  9iqn[osui 

<£> 

CO 

<N  l> 

CO 

O to  rH 

0 

1 CO 

l 03 

J9^B AV  9Ap0y 

d 

d 

d d 

d 

d 

d d rH 

d 

d 

» d 

! d 

•}U99  J9d 
‘otuBSao 

05 

00 

CD 

to 

r-H  to 

0 0 

to 

CO 

S§5S 

to 

83 

1 0 

1 co 

9iqnios  J91BM 

d 

d 

d d 

d 

d 

odd 

d 

d 

! d 

! d 

•^U90  J9d  ‘S^BS 

T* 

00 

00  co 

Tjl  O 

to 

00 

CO  CD  CO 

rH 

CO 

1 0 

1 co 

BlUOlUUIBpUB  S9^Bjq 

(N 

rH 

rH  CO  O 

03 

ZO 

1 C3 

-rii  ur  9xqn^os  J9^b^\ 

d 

d 

d d 

d 

d 

odd 

d 

d 

1 d 

! d 

aa  '°N  uoijoadsui 


•ON  IBPIJJO 


© 


© 


\% 


4 I I ft  I ft  I I 

- „ -irard53rdo3,a,o  _ 

ftoftoftooftoftOOO 
tuo=ft  tuo4=!  suo=s4h  &<)=«  bo4^^«M 


a 

03  T3 

« ft 

ft  Q 
fcflift 


33  ^ 33  *ft  'ft  ^ 'ft  3i  *ft 
“ftftftftftftftftft 

ftoftoooftofto 
fcuo4=i  teH  tuo>3 


£ o 

© o 


a>  eo 

03  rH 
1—1  c£> 

t-t- 


,£S 

iftS 

) © *H 

iQO 


© w 
Zs  ^ 
X tifl 
03  S3  ^ 
bflOH 

££  £ 
S3  <33  03 

ojz;^ 


(NO5  00 


> zo  CO  CO  CO  CO  < 


J>]>-  O O <M  <M  <N  OJ  00  CO  rH  rH 

000 


t- t- 1- 1-  j 


OOCOOOOOCOODOOOOCOOO 


06  a 

5 ^ 

O 4, 
® X 

r ® 
0- 
o '< 

06  ® 
1;  ® 

a 7, 

« p 


23  o d 

ia*° 

o*3  | § 

rft-ft  ft  S 

03  S’  0 ,2 

«Q  ft 

a^S  a. 

gflOWsS^ 

£ g|*H  ft  o,2 
U fl  0;  o>g 
ft  33  m ft 
33  tj  ^ M M2  dx 
os  tScn  os  °o 

ft  a _•  3 -ft  ® 

s ,s?  a 2 «3^ 


3 23  5 

I a 
o 


ft  63 

a«- 


■2  a^  § 


So -ft  oq  • <g  . 

g«i3W^ 
S®g*  I* 
g-gm  fc 
= (3 
c 


! TP  • Pn  &j’  ( 


-ft  JS  s ^ o 

ftChBS, 
§ S O .2  ; 


K; 

^5i 

■Ho 

ra»?S  I^Sw'i-ii 

ft*  O*  ft*  * 
ft  ft  O 
rH  0 5?; 


i 

1 

1 

1 

l 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11  11 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 

1 1 1 1 A-i  1 1 1 1 1 rrt  1 1 

1 1 V 1 © | 1 1 ||33|l 

1 1 1 1 N l 1 1 1 1 w | | 

1 1 1 1 

■ 1 1 1 

1111 

1 1 1 1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CT  1 1 

1 l 1 1 O?  1 1 1 l|  1 1 Ah 

1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Illi-Mliirjilpp-Jli© 

ililFnlilQQlIrlilS 

>1111 
| 1 1 1 1 

1 

1 

1 1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 1 1 1 Cxj  1 1 1 1 i^3  1 1 ^ 

1 1 1 1^  1 1 l+f  1 IQ  1 14-3 

1 1 1 1 . , 1 I 1 O 1 1 Z 1 1 Ah 

iiii^iiin,i|»ii© 

! 1 1 1 1 

» 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

1111 

o 
O 

® ; - • ft 
A ! © CO 

Uro 
g ft 
£2 
SM 

ft 
ft! 

ao  oi  o3 

3J  W ft  § W 
o M ’-ft  t« 
5 33  <u  O C3 
O O 

ft  .«  ffl 
ftC  co’gg  m 
’-ft  • g ® . O) 

HH  03  PH  Oj 


© 

1! 

3k 


r- 

CO  CO 
tO  LQ 


0 to 

c3  q ■ ?*- 
£J>q  ft  S 

o ft  .5  "tg 

S^sg 


ftjodW  a^* 
33  o 
(ft  O 


|3 

*b 


S3S 

ft-S 

M § 

ooM 


ft3  -ft 


ft" 

is 

O - 


S£i 

Is' 


ft 

03  T3  ^ TI3  ^ 

ft  ^ ft  ft 

2 ft  2 ft  ft 

ft  o ft  o o 

tUOfti  6u0«ft.ft 


2 5 

03  ft 

PhO 


hmmm 

I -^< 


„PP  s >» 
S «J 
ft  o3 
ft  W 
ft  ft  b 


<3^W. 


g 2^5 
BO 
< 


>> 

ft  X2 

a! 

s ^ 
8*f 

o 


eQ  ft 

S ft" 

9- 

Pi  o a la 
pftol 

•g 

bflQ  o ^ 

◄ a.S£. 

PI  OS^J®^ 

gg-o?- 

.S  X3  <30 

g.£tf  C 

< 


47 


O 03  in 

NOIH 

NNW 


,M^H010'#lBOWOl(OWOHOO®OHMOfflOOTllT|(<d|HOeOOCOOh; 

iMNNNNHNHHrtHHHNMHNHNNNHHMNNNMHNHOHH 


OOWOOfflOOMOlOI)OHOOO®00000[>l>lflfflON01t«l>OOOt;0'#00 

dddd<M<N<M<No6o3odc3ddddcdddWdddcoododc6ooco£303coaooooo 


OOOINrHOOOOi 


O rH  O O O 03 
rH  rH  <M  <N  <M  03 


(DaoooooOHOffloooooNooriox 

rlHrlNOrlHHOOrlrlNNOrlOi 


IONMONM 

Innninnn 


i r-  oo  co  in  1 co 
loddd  loo 


oo  CO  CO  I IN  <N  CO  CO 

doo  'dodo 


<M  CO 

o o 


dodo 


io  m oo 

odd 


i d d d o 


i >n  os 

l <N  rH 

I d d 


I <N  <M  CO  03 

I O o d o 


03inin  i^hmhh  icoco  it*  i co  eo  t*  eo 
odd  idodd  ioo  io  ioooo 


riCON  I rH  03  03  H 

odd  Idodd 


i 03  03 

i d d 


o o o o 


o o o o o 


o d o o d 


Mnooo 
d o d o o 


03  CO  t*  03  eo 

o o d o d 


cl 

o3  'd 'd  'd 

<h  a a a 
2 3 a a 
a o o o 


^ T2  T3  T2 

2 a 3 cs 
go°° 

bll«tH  <4-1  <4-4 


a 'O  'O  'd  T3 

2 a a i ' 

5 a 3 : 

B ° ° 1 

tUO  =*— I «M  <4 


I CO  t-  CO  03  oo 


1 ^ 

I d o 


I 03  (03 
I O rH 


O I O I o o 


i'S 


C5 

a 1 a 

1 

1 

p 1 1 1 1 

a la  la 

a 1 

03  72 

1 72 

1 83  03  -C 

I'd'd 

•c 

1 c3  T2  72  72  T3  ^ 

1 03T3  03  T3  St 

1 03  d)  t3 

fH  C 

! C 

[ Ch  d *h  C 

[ a a 

t a 

! Jh  a P P P P 

2 a 2 a b a 

1 9 a a 

C3  rn 

t D 

I 2 a 2 a 

1 a a 

c 

i 2 a a a a a 

i 2 a 2 a 2 © 

! 2 a a 

2 c 

• C 

1 a 0 a c 

1 0 0 

c 

1 a 0 0 0 0 c 

1 a 0 a 0 a c 

' a 0 0 

bO  eg 

1 tuO'*H  tU0«ft 

1 tuO^H  HH  HH  <HH  <IH 

1 kfl'w  bfin-i  bfin- 

1 bfi«4H  «+H 

w O 

g g tn 

83  3 M 

> U 03 

WWW 


I a 2>a 
I o a o 
\B%8 
I23& 

'WOhDQ 


i 2 > O 

I 03  © P 

;wt>w 


3 ^ 

■ft  © 

“.a 
8 03 


A~i  Ah  <h 

■g  g-g  g 

O S3  O 


I m ’>  ^ ’S  m 

I Cl  CO  O £ Cl 
I 03  a •£  o 83 

15  g 8 £2 

I > S-,.2  M 

iO  W WWO 


li 


03  rj 

3 o 

tUOH-l 


O03OM 


O O O 00  CO  O CO 

03  N d CO  CO  00  00 


2 a s 2 cs 
S3  o O a O 

&fl<M<fH  tU0<pH 


a -d 

S2 

QH 

dtf 

ss 

o o 


i >d  -a 
i © © 

I CO  03 


S3  S3 

Pk  fL, 


MOM 

3S3SS 

J>  J 


I O 05 
I GO  00 

- j CO  00 

■ J> 


■ CO  CD  (M 
ilOHN 
» i"H  05 

> J>  x> 


05C5C5  00  00  00  G0OOOOOT-HrHT— ICOCO^^tJ''^^^|-Ol010lOjDlDLOLOCOCOI>^-g5lgjO 

:iiii§SS§§§§§!§iSi!iiIi§!!!i36&ssfesssfc 


o<% 

§1. 

■§?! 

'ajW 


O 

.5?  o • 

.C^W 

Cj  * * 

3 


« O 

C/i  d 4-  ^ OJ 

“ O Gk  tlCG 

S’S’ilS* 

Q 3 WQ^.3 
mO  . oo  m 


3 


§ « § d 3 o 

H bu  t-  © .a  W 

* o * * I 


72  P 

SS 

w3 

<io 

5250 


itf 

a 

« .a  i oa 
. -osa  - 

? 05  H 4) 

.3  © ”3  3 © A 

'O  M S © 

a 83 W 

{5^'d.o^'O 
+?i-i » 


s|S3a 
1|§2 
i-oil 
s~ 


" a 

^ o 

WCO 


o . to  O .CO 
® • 0)  o fc>.  03 

o & a cc  a 
* o*  o 

W W 


®-W  .H 

. axs  2 

.03  o O 

d ^os; 
* 


l|il|laiii 

§>mfMsgf£j 

. S • Ok  O • O . 

wo  2£; 

o*  * *■  ®* 

W P 


1> 

05  05 


i|!{|©J§ 

) CD  c3  <^3  H C5  g .2 

a ®h4h 

S'oSmV 
gi-jgflO 

o*  o* 

W W 


W , M- 

03  k Ol  .. 

’ 


© 

as 

E-'-a*' 

o 

^ 9 

g 2 

£n 

O ri 

o S 
_ o. 
ca  a 
.Si  o 

3° 

« 

83 

o « -o 

a i— i ft 

rj  a . « a 

S © O ‘S  hH 
^o ^ ft  >, 

a a „ a 
.2  o -o  o a 

Sips 

sl!&§ 

O HH>  Q . 

•c  8 £ 

3^ 

<1 


a rH 


35  S 

o d o 


« ©2 
‘3  a © 

a 03 

x3  cq  © 

U jv 

gS5f 

i«§i 


a 

cd  r2  C3 

S»Ph  >, 


•s  ©H  H >>UH 
tU)  © © 

<d  ^2  "L.  'a  'O  h 

> « £ a © 


* 

3^ 


a a 
r © -3 
o,  S?  d 
w ftW 

<D 

H (U  -* 

5 a>  Q 

w 

.Swd 
-a  k a 
2 

‘3  § 1H 

° rrH 
©O'© 
Ci  H 8 

CO 

© _©  c3 

Oft  O 

g s $ 

cj  a a 

02  72  W 

* t-  ® 


TABLE  VI. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Fertilizers  Collected  in  1917  (continued) 


48 


so 


•}U9D  J8d 

TB*?£ 


CCSr- 

06  to  CO 


cinoco 


•;uao  J8d 

‘aiqniosui 


ooniflffiONON 


o®OMooO'#oooo»®ooo!Cie 

NHNOHIMriNdwHOdd'icid 


•JU0O  aad 
•p9}J9A8J 
puB  ajqniog 


ooaowoaoco 

OrHrHOrHddoN 


oiooaoooHi'OMOHUL'iMo 

odr-;'#^'#odcdo6r-^o6o6ododr^dt^o6 


. ‘}U0D  J0d  ‘J9}T3M.  UI 

©iqnios  ‘osX  ‘qsB^oj; 


© o> 
IO  IM 


©OOrH'^©CMrH©«a-^r-e<l 

oii-H<MC<lCOCMCOCOI>ICOI.NioO 


•}U80  J9d 

TBJOJL 


Ht<  t*  rH  Os  CO 

d CO  cd  N pi  H 


cot'-ooioooo>©oooiinooco 

HnnHododondd 


•}U00  J8d 
‘8Al}OB  pUB  9iqn 
-ios  j0;bai  ibjoj, 


00  B5  00  J>  CO  t*  tJI 
IO  rfl  H*  © o H*  rt< 

© © © © rH  © © 


•4U00  J9d  ‘oiubS 
-jo  ©iqniosui 

J0}BA1  8AIJ0BUI 


CO  CO  00  rH 

odd  © 


rH  in  10 
00  r*  00 

d d © 


© © © © © © © 


•}U0D  J0d  ‘OIUBS 

-ao  Biqrqosui 

J84BA\.  0AIJ0Y 


© 10  CO  © 
CO  IO  rr  CO 

odd© 


©©©©©©© 


•}U80  J0d 

‘oiubSjo 

Biqnjos  J91BM 


•^U00  j0d  ‘S^JBS 
BIUOUIUIB  PUB  S0;Bjq 
-iu  UI  ©jqrqos  j9^ba\ 


I>  J>-  C5  <M 
Cvl  rH  © rjt 

d © © © 


l>(ON 

© © d 


IO  © 

odd 


rH  ©<N  © 

©do© 


HONH 

©odd 


oq  © © 

d © d 


HNN 

odd 


H*  00  00  ©00  © x 

HCICIHINON 

©©©odd© 


EIH  ‘ON  uoi}O0dsui 


•ON  1-eptjJO 


a 

o 

33 

& 

a 

®dJ 


® 3 

a ° 

o o 

® x 


QJ  Qj 

a e. 


G3  ^ ^ pO  T3  C3  pO  & T3 
533?sSr|S3 

?oooopo?o 

O0«4-(  «4— ( «+— . H — I QJQMH  OflMH 


,lro 

j & 


2 3 3 

B,  o ° 

6jO«4H  <4H 


03  dJ 
C3  0 

d o 

Sfl'tH 


I 1 d I 3 I I M I 
T3rOdT3d,d,OcS'i3rOw-_w 
dd^d^ddSHddd'Hd 
3353233^33323 

00S0^00^'000^0 


rC3  T33  T3  Td 
s3  d d 
^333 
OOOO 


6c*h 

a PO 

E d-° 

a a-2  b 


LQN  H 

Ohhh 
^N00O 
J>  00 


ag 

PhOQ 


8 S3 


©3  0 

•s  I g* 

£Wc 


i 

!o  | ! 

1 

1 

! ! « 

j S3  ' j 

! 

|§T3  ' 

bo 

d 

! 0 2 
© 9 

1 § 0 0 

’? 

tS3  d 

! d f> 

lop 

W 

■ ow 

'OgW 

Q 

.2  o 
•gs  fl’sl'g 

□ r-w  if.  rA  u fH 

5 0X3m0  0.S 
^ O M CO 
O ^ O M O 

OMOW  WOk 


iioioao 

I 2fr  1 01  co  05  00  p 


00  Ci 
..  nt» 
<N  J>  00 


<OOOOOt>JD^OO 

rc  l:  da  o o O O O O 

ooooooooo 


^Tjtrti^cpcOOOCOOOOOOOOOOCOOOO 

O C O O O1  O O O'  C^>  rH  r- < i-H  r— 1 r— 1 t— ' 1— H t— 1 i-H  1— < r- ' rH 

ojaaQO^aojc^aoiooictnoLTLOLOLoift 

(M(N(N(M(M^IM(M(NN(N(N(MOOWWCOWCCWCC 


d'o<31 

©5  ^ 

ft  C3  Q) 

S^.s 

O 3 33 

OKU 
, © 
d.dW 
o c. 

a § « 

<X>  Hi 

Sm/e 

■ o 

gol 

d - H 


<y  g O 

Is0 

d^ 

c3  . ' 

"W 

< 


© 

U Q<<v 

•ccgl-aS 

**U 

InScd 

SMhQ^ 


d 

o 

w d . 

'O  S 

Cl  g CC 

S3  w 

S6^ 

«d  g 
W <5?  W 

<5 


6 

o 

Ch 

*3  6 
0° 
=8 


33 

p.  . 

« d 
0 d 
33  © 

W EH  © ^ 

Idiog 
- 


s 


33  id  ft 
d Sco 

So  ® ft 

2 w 


S'S®’ 


„ „ bio  . 

©©OO 


CS  45 
.c>52  css 

fc  ©^ 

Ew 


O ® O 

■g'Ojg®  g"|fe  % 
83**?"“°" 

pH  C3 

S o 
gw 

d 

c 


Wo 


<3  W.d  i 

oe  * c3  1 

W O 


(3  3 
03  - 

. d 

© 

. W 

w . 
© w 


bo  o 

•EL) 

d 

13  2 

og 


imOSc 


; •So. 

1 l-.  d O j 

~ o tut- 

‘ . L W . 

:hj^oC 


4860 


49 


ONCOO 
r-  ^ os  h 

V,  « /M 


lOHNHW^00  05Hl0HHW^(Nl£500  00WiOWHMOlOI>l>NWN-<d<C0WiO05Ml0U5lOC0WMMW00O' 
OOOOOOOrHC^OrHrHOOOOrH(MrHOOrHT-HTHOrHOTHO(NOrHrHOC<IrHOOOOT-HTHrHOOrH' 


OWtO^OHO05  05OOHOC5HO05<NMOO^O05Ol>-W00O(MOOtOOMirHOOO00HMinO(MNi 

odincodoioidoNNdooooooooi^cJooddddoioor^co^dHdoro^n-  fMOOwdcoiM-^-f ’f  i 


OMNOOO' 


OOr-HONO^WOONN 


O o o o 


00  00  00  O 05  00  r 
dodrlddi 


CO  05  C5  C 


O O 05  05  00  O 1 
HHOcdrii 


lOOCOOOCOOQOOCOOOOO 


00  05  H O H 00  O O i 
ddHHHOHHi 


^NOC5  i o r— 

lo  oo  oo  lo  i 

dodo  ! © © 


00  CO 

o d o d loo 


oo  co  03  lo 

CO  J>»  LO  CO 

d d do 


J>»  LO  IQ 

odd 


o o o o 


CO  03  CO  03 

d d d d 


CO  LOGO 

odd 


05  CO  rH 
OHri 


H H CO  CO  l 03  CO 

d d d o iod 


MOO 

odd 


O O 03  rH 

ddod 


I O CO 

! o d 


odd 


.^-^0  ( 
LO  LO  ■ 


odd 


odd 


LO  00  LO  -H 
H CO  H CO 

d do  d 

IO  H H lO 
H CO  O 03 

dodd 

8288 

ddod 


CO  CO  LO 
03  rH  CO 

O O d 


odd 

00  O Jt>- 
rH  03  rH 

odd 


CO  03 
GU  LO 

d d 


05  HH  lO  J>- 
H lOCO  H 

dodo 


S 2 8 

6oo 


00  O 
rr  CO 

d d 


CO  r-l  CO  CO 

dodo 


«oo^ 

dodo 


O <© 

d d 


A . 
c3  ^ TU  T3 

a a a 
^333 
?oo° 


73  73  d 73  73  73  73  d ng  73 

S^r- 


■ I * —a  I I I I I I I I I I I 

I M I I M I I I M I I I I M I I I M I 

w • w • w • w c3  'O  c3pOrOrO  c3,OrOrOrO  ^ 

dddd^dd^ea^add^dddd^ddd^d 


33«3333233“33«33323333“3 

05H,0000  H,00E005,000B,0000E° 

*H  «+H  tuQ«4H  «4H  «+H  «+H  tU0«4H«4H  tUQ  *+H  MH  6fl«4H  MH  «+H  &0  HH  «+H  '■M  'HH  tUO 'H— I 


p;  y ^ r)  rJ  p p 

-wOOpOOOO 

bflS4H<«q-l  <M  «l-l  «M 


73  73  73  d 73 

” ‘ P 

d 3 

d o 
bo  <2 


. d 

73  03  'O 

a % 0 

3 2 d 

o ? o 


bo=d  bo 


737373 

d d a 

™ d d d 

?ooo 


73  d 73  73  T3 
d £ d d d 
3^333 


O r: 

J§§ 

iPWAh 


® d 
-S« 

S >.2? 

ddj3 

03  W ^3 

ocsS 


>»  >> 


i^73°° 
dddd 
! > d d d 

i >>  d bo  bo 

! d rp  "d  p 


I'pd 

;g§ 


1 P M 

O f-c 

! » d 

! Sw 

i|l 

I O <y 

Hcc 


d 

^ d 5 
O S 33 
o>  O 
d 

o . P 
o +»  >> 


i M 73 

I'p 03  -s 

■ > 4H  rrt  ^3 

!^”§S 

ill 

'coWOPM 


>> 

6 

d - 

2 a 

d m 2 

pge 

73  P d 

O > 3 

OWE 


II 

Pd 

CP  02 


S g o -2 

rO-B  O g 


! “ 
I c^d 
! d £ 3 
! O O =3 
■Cf^M 


oco  05 


i co  * co  in 


£$! 
CO  Jt-  I 


H CO  03  LQ  I CO  05 
ONOtH  iohh 
05  CO  LO  LQ  I 05  03  LO 
COJNN  N * CO  t>-  i>* 


© LO  LO  LO  LO  LO  I 


■ GO  00  00  GO  GO  < 


CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  « 


» 05  05  05  ■ 
• t"»  J>>  ( 

1 H H ' 


£—  !>•  JH  1H  J 

» CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  co  cO  c 


o 

o 

0 o 

5 * 


gf=H  Cl 


S2£ 

as^ 


SSogo 

<0P  C3  c 

dd.«  g-d 

S » 43  .5  ^ 

S ’S3  ^ 


p 

3 2 53 

7/vW 


® d3  d5  7 


«w  • d Id  73  M 


^ Pq  O § 

Ofl’3 

O®  I aS’S’Stn^^r.  P & 

d*  d*  d**d 

< <1  -7 


d « 

isl 

III 

-a®,0 

S 02  ^ 

O . 

SW<1 


; « o ® 

J-ao  b 

2‘-5  bn  2 
, sh  d •P 
r^’d  P 
' pH  d ® , 
d bu' 

r-i  d d 


fr  02 

_ O „ 


T3-*. 


S-oOpn 

SwWW^I 

d * 


Po 
ca  q d 
sv  O 

•a  ® O d 

Hd^ifi 
.2^  0,2 
id|>  . ® 
02^1 

h ® EsO 

5 d 73 

shwk; 


g §3  dC 

| SSlS; 


d 

O m 
O 
bfld 
£*  - 


— , a 

CLi  c 
^02 


a 

1:3  X!  " 

O M S' 
3 d ^ d 
f o3 -£73 
, md  O® 
I'd  t> P-i ^ 

"ifo 


Sjj.1 

CZ2  dg 


« 03 

SM 

<! 


T « 

is 


W02pp^-  . 

,<5«  ®d‘^ 

• .d  d P . 


tx 

d 

5=8 

K'g 

aB 


* Sample  received  in  the  spring  i*  (see  page  17) 

> 2 Purchased  from  Edw.  Billman  15  Purchased  from  W.  F.  Myers 

13  Sample  to  Mfr.  Refund  (see  page  30)  is  Returned  to  Mfr.  (see  page  32) 

14  Refund  (see  page  30) 


TABLE  VI. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Fertilizers  Collected  in  1917  (continued) 


5^ 


Phosphoric 
acid,  P0O3 

•^uao  aad 
‘I^oa, 

14.0 

23.4 

14.0 

17.9 

20.0 

21.1 

28.0 

31.1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 i 1 1 i 1 1 1 » 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 l l l 11  l l 11 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

•ju99  aad 
‘aiqniosui 

toto^cocototnr^ 

dddddn  do  i 

1 

t 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 O GO  O CO  tO  00 

1 1 (NNHWNCO 

l l 

1 1 

OOOO^COOCOHOCD 

COHdCOtOcicOCOHN 

•juao  aad 
‘p9}a9Aaa 
pup  aiqniog 

14.0 

14.3 

15.3 

13.6 

14.7 

14.1 

12.0 

11.5 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 

1 1 oooH^cooamoooooooojotfl 
oooooocoo-*d^odrQo6ododi>Good 

1 1 

•JU90  J9d  ‘aOVBAV  UI 

aiqnios  ‘os>I  qsB^Od; 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

I 1 

II  O T* 

11  to  to 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 i KM^MtCMNOO 

1 1 l 1 1 idddoHOrirH 

1 1 l 1 1 1 

1 1 1 l 1 1 

•;u8D  aad 
‘lejoj. 


COOlQOOlr-iai'^lO 

ddddriddo 


in  co 
co  in 


Irt  00  < 
Cd  Cd  © ! 


•}U80  J9CI 
‘SAipB  pU'B  9iqn 
- [os  aa}BAV  ib;ox 


}U90  aad  ‘oiwe3 
-ao  gjqniosui 
aa}T3AA  9Apo^ui 


•}U90  aad  ‘oiiveS 
-ao  giqniosut 
aajPAi.  9 A l}0 v 


•^U90  J9d 

‘aiucSao 
giqnjos  j9}b.m. 


•;u90  aad  ‘s^bs 
nruouauBpuB  S9^bj^ 
-iuui  ajqnjos  aa^w 


lOWONlO 

do  odd 


CO  Cd  Cd  CO  CO 

ddodd 


© © © © © 


CO  O (M  CO 

© © © d 


00000 


00  00 

Cd  Cd 

dod 


in  to  co 

odd 


m cd 
Nhh 

odd 


1 1>  © 

I d d 


odd 


SS3 

o o 


O) 


odrOpCJrOpOrO  73 


a) 


<x> 


5 33 
s o 
tuoS 


2 33 

3 o 
bl)S 


a ; 1 

S3  T3  S3  T3 
fn  a ^ a 

* 3 « 3 
^0^0 
fcuO«M  fcJO'w 


CO  |> 
J>  Ci 

o d 


d d 


00  00 

Cd  i-h 

o d 


c3  TD 

S 33 
3 o 
bcS 


PI 

T3T3  S3  ^ *0  o3^^3  c3 

332232332 

oo?oo?oo? 

m-i  «w  bx)^— i 1 bfl«H<t-i  bfl 


'OT3 

pi  a 
33  33 
o o 


2 3 

i3  o 

bfl<« 


aa  'ON  uoi^oadsui 


o S’SO-S 
be  o S . 03; 
0-3  g-3  « 
O 03  « «S  •« 


in®oci«  i eg 


1 5 ^ ^ 

! ^ 33  33 
iOOO 

ItS  2 2 

' 2 s>»  >» 

I «H  o Ol 
'PH  COCO 


1 in  x—  cd 

IHHOO 
I t>  t- 


3 3 
O O 

a a 
>>  >> 


3 
be  o 

1 .a  a 
* & 
'Hco 


3 I 3 

beg  0 

a a : a 

^ >j  1 >> 

'w 


'ON  repIJJO 


iHHHHHlfllfl 
1 CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  GO  00 
I 00  OD  00  00  OJ  Oi  Oi 


88 
CO  co 


1 10  to 
, zo  CO 
LO  to 


• i>j>LOtototototocDcocoir^i 
MM  . . ,^r 


CO  CO  J>»  I>  1 


JLOlOlOtOtOCD^OCOCOCO' 


'tototoiototototo 


0>  V 

Sa 


fn  & * 

„N  pq 


a? 


3£ 

O £ 

Pi  F=H 
C3 

s s 

*S  6 
So 


>> 

3 ~ 

C3  S3 


^ °D3 
u 3^ 

a s 

2<i 


|I|P! 

1 CO  03  p 


C3  . „ 

^.a 
1 3 
1 « 

J *3 

;Ph 


g 

a 

o 
O 
bo  3* 

a<^ 


Tcj  N 

*g§ 

gn  & a 


3 * * 


a a^ifc* 

O as 

h-s  i-j  pj  pq  <3 


an 


■3  • 

P S3 

03  cq 


O « 
«■§ 
ouK 


hOfl3P 
« 33  CL|  J5 

PhCJ  3 M 3 

. >n  ^n 
p 5 2* 

03  S3  O 

an  « 


1 a?  ^ 


o o 
QQ 


o o 
QQ 

f-i  u 

ao  a) 
N N 


5 f-H  P-H  J3  P-H  S-l 

1 cd  o)^  a)  a) 


.H  o 

.73  Fh 
£0 
ao 
PH 


n 'h  l 

ao  g ao  a> 

a 2 o 


II 

a=n 

3 « 3 3W  3 3 

?q.acifln_,cqfl 

* 03  * * S * 


o 


on  feoa  >.n 

O bj  O r^, 

apqw-“pq^.S 
H pq  Eh  ^ H H M 


5i 


o ' 

03  <N  CO  lOO 


> O 00  05 

• cd  cd 


o co  o o o 

00  CO  H (N  M 


0«-;OH  O 
ICWIOIOIO 


OlOOCOOJOHOCOOOMN 

cDNwcoHoioiooodooH 


OlftOOON 

•^lO^INCO 


OWOOlf3»"OCMOMX)O^OOlM 

^LOOCDOO)CO)HHOOOCOWO) 


i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ! 

000  1 i i i i ; ; ; ; i ; ; ; ; jMrH  ; i 

i i 
i i 
i i 
i i 

1 1 

i i i i i i i i i i i 

1 0(0  CO  P-  1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

I T—  CD  O O i i i l i 1 1 i 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

l l 1 l | i 1 l I | | 

tot-ao  ' ' ! oo  o in  ?o  oo  oo  i i<oi>oonn<oh^<o<oio  I 

HHri  1 ' ! Oriddddd  l IHHrtHHHNdddd  1 

III  II  1 

Tt*  LO  LO 

odd 

1 III 

i 00  H 00  05  CO  05  00  O 05  i 1 i 00  00 

1 O rH  O O fH  I-H  O rH  O l i I H H 

l ill 

I ill 

i 00  O ' ' ' 1 iP 

1 00  O ' 1 1 1 

1 O rH  1 1 1 1 O 

M IC5LO  i 1 lOq-tH  ICO  ICO  lOOHLO  i 

CO  I LO  LO  l l ICOCO  100  IJ^  ICO^CM  1 

OlOO  ilii-Ht-HlOlrHlOOO  1 

1 ill  ill  l 

! co  05 

1 03  (N 

i o d 

1 

l 

1 

1 

i 

05  00 

J>-  ^ co 

odd 

1 1 1 1 1 

05  I CO  00  1 I 1 1 CO 

CO  1 00  CO  l 1 1 1 LO 

rH  l O O i i l l rH 

1 l i 1 | 

1 III  1 

1 <N  O 1 i 1 i Lf5 

1 00  00  » 1 1 1 C<J 

! © o i i i i © 

1 III  III  l 

^ i H LO  i i IHO  l(M  1^  iNOW  • 

rHI<M<N  1 1 IWH  ICO  ICO  KNH'M  1 

OlOO  lilOOlOlOiOOO  l 

1 

1 C<J  <N 

i o o 

i 

i 

1 

l 

l 

l 

i 

CO  H C<J 

CO  CO  Cl 

odd 

1 1 1 l l 

rH  1 Tfi  I i l l J> 

<M  1 rH  (M  l l I 1 03 

O 1 O O 1 1 1 i o 

1 1 1 1 1 

!©^<  ! ! ! !© 

1 © 1 1 1 IJ> 

i © cd  i i i i © 

00  1 CQ  00  iii^r-iiOlCOiOCOO  i 

T-l  ic3c<J  1 1 1 CO  C<3  I LO  1 LO  i C<J  »-H  t— ( 

dlod  iiiddididiodd  i 

i 

i 00  tH 

! o d 

1 

l 

1 

l 

1 

i 

© 

LO  CO  © 

© © © 

1 1 1 1 1 

00  1 05  CO  1 1 1 | H< 

rH  l O O i 1 l 1 CO 

O 1 O O I I l 1 O 

1 1 i l | 

l 05  <N  1 1 1 ?H 

l © <M  l 1 1 l © 

1 © © 1 1 1 1 © 

LO  I <M  CO  I l I O CO  ICO  1 03  IHOOO  1 

HiOOOl  1 1 1000  1 H ICO  l H C<1  O i 

dlod  ! ! ioh  !d  !o  'odd  1 

1 LO  00 
i O rH 

i o d 

SMS 
© © © 

l 1 1 1 1 

rH  I 05  i i 1 i CO 

LO  INO  i l 1 i 00 

rH  1 O O 1 1 l 1 O 

i i i i i 

|2S  ; : ; <;s 

1 © © 1 1 1 1 © 

11  III  III  * 1 

i H<05  1 l 1 LON  ICO  l H IJHOOJ^-  I 

IIOO  1 1 IC0C0  J i-H  ICO  *000  1 

iido  i i oo  id  id  iddo  i 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

i ^ co 

1 O QO 

! d d 

III  l 1 1 1 

1 I 1 CO  I | I 1 CO 

1 1 1 LO  1 I 1 1 CO 

i i 1 O i i i i o 

III  1 1 1 1 

guaranteed. 

found 

found 

guaranteed. 

found 

found 

guaranteed. 

found 

guaranteed. 

found 

guaranteed  . 

found 

found 

guaranteed. 

found 

guaranteed. 

found 

found 

guaranteed. 

found 

guaranteed. 

found... 

guaranteed. 

found 

found 

found 

guaranteed. 

fnnnd 

•8 

(3  1 

! S3  T3  'C 

I 53  S3  P 

J 83  3 3 

) B,  o C 
1 q- 

'O 

<v 

<v 

fl 

! 03  'C 

! p 

guaranteed. 

found 

found 

found 

guaranteed. 

found 

guaranteed. 

found 

found... 

guaranteed. 

found  

found . 

guaranteed. 

found 

a 

* 

o to 


l u £ 

'H  w 


S3  3 
o o 

aa 

>»  >> 


ill 

• H <3 

•Ooq 


I LO 

i lo  r- 

I LO  O) 


c ° 
5 *-• 


b w 

<35^-- 

w o O 
cs  0-2 

QWO 


) 00  00  CO  co  CO 
I N N Ol  05  05 
) LO  LO  CO  CO  CO 


W (N  00  00  00  00  00 
l>  N 00  00  (N  Cl  (M 


CO  <M 

LO  Tji 

jh  jh 


COCOC<JC<IC<ICOCOLOLOOOOOOOOO 

c^c^c0Gia>g5.OiLOLOLOLOLOLo 

CO^CJ(MOJW(MI-N^NNN 

COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO 


E? 

as 

03  C3 

Oh} 


LO  ol 
Jt>*  C<J 
CO 

co 


CO  CO  CO  CO  CO 

8888888 

(N  (N  CO  CO  CO 


jrc:£pd 

• § E § 

i a § a 

J *ft  d 

; « o .2 

■ «o« 


• i WI>N 
3>  iv  J>  J 


'O'O 
S3  a 
o o 


o « 

ss 


I O fH 

SO) 

a 

I >sh  a 

!.S  o 
SD 


I LO  Tft 


:§S8§8 


'COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO' 


opq 

>:£ 
a a 

S3  Q. 

a co 
° I 

r i I. 


S3  .S 

O g 

S3  a>  O.-^ 

.a  .m£*s 

83  M 

S^ssts 

hC^BW 

£*  * s*  * 


s« 


2at;g 

2“ 

n ®m  „ 


a 
o 

a 

2 a '5^ 

<13  <J  'S 


!*8°* 


& SrK  W. 

«a°a! 

Ph  p . p 
oS<3«>«W!> 
bjo  o o 

go  o o 


H.2 
- a 
t»X3 

a a 
a w 
a2 
a£ 

cH 
O a 
<n 
<5  83 

s5  « 
tUs 

o bnw 
— a £2 


a 83 

*s  P-1 


a a 
3 >>  %§  o 

g2S1s|g 

Q«£o^g 

tr^lriSs^ 

.2flO 

* * .5?*  I. 

MOo 


£ bXJM 
a fe® 

^«8 


>»  *H 

a g 
a £ 
a o 

IS 

°s 

a a 

l§J 

a . £ 
“ j2>  a 

i§* 


<!a« 
- PI 
% t>.T3 
j§  a a 

o * 

pq 


a 83 

fi-3 

& ® 2 
NSW 
-jal  . 

-*>  p^k 

H M Hi 

a 

.S^£ 
a'O4 
a ‘5 


o O 
OO 


a o.aa 

•rH  CG  *^h 

4->  o +*  +* 

H H H 

CO  fn  CO  05  O) 

a2  fl  S3  "* 


» ® N 


M2 


. .2  o .a  g h w ^ im 

W*  ’£  ^ o 5 *5  *5  ft  c td 

h'O  -j- 

^S^gg>SSgS^. 

^o ao^oo^o ® 

o a "S 
OH  <J  ( 


* Sample  received  in  the  spring  18  Purchased  from  A.  E.  Hall,  Guilford,  Ind. 

17  Purchased  from  J.  J.  Lawler,  Chicago,  111.  19  Purchased  from  B.  F.  Connelly 


TABLE  VI. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Fertilizers  Collected  in  1917  (continued) 


O 

nuoo  aocl 

go 

nu0O  j0d 

ft1^ 

‘©iqniosui 

oS 

43  O 

•}U80  aod 

Ph  d 

‘p0^j0A0a 

put!  oiqniog 

OOOH^XCC^X 

OOOOOOHHHNH 


HOCodoJ(N(MHnilM^lO(M(NHH(MCO(NWNfOi>iH(N 


OOJQOWOOOOOlflOl 

CDOOf^COCOCiOiOrHI^OOr 


lOHOJNOOOOrft^OONN 

lOOOHOOOOXOiOHNO 


CO  O CO  O 00 

i c<i  o o o> 


*}U00  JOCl  Ul 

oiqnios  ‘oc:i  ‘qs'cioj 


tMO  O LO  10  i I OX  rl 
ndrldo  i iwdd 


•}UO0  J0CI 


XNINOOO^M 


00  O O 

Ori  H 


^X^HOXOXNOXH 

inohhhohohooh 


•}U00  *10Cl 
‘0AI}0T3  PUT3  0iqn 
-\OS  J0}T3Ai 


o o o o 


oo  oo  in 
dod 


*^U00  aocl  ‘oiiruS 
-ao  ©iqnfosui 
joit3ai  ©ai^o'bui 


r-  co 
lo 

d d 


X OX  (M 


CO  CO  I ZD  ■'H  rji 

o o i d d d 


o o 


NM  tJi 

dod 


nu30  J0d  ‘OTUtjS 

-ao  9iqn{osui 

J0}T!A\  0AI}0y 


dodo 


dodo 


CO  X H 

i d d d 


-H  03 

d d 


'}U00  J0CI 
<0[U'b5jo 
oiqtqos  J0}T2A1 


LO  O O (M 

dodo 


CO  "H  00  H 
WOWO 

ddod 


'11100  jod  ‘S^ES 
'CIUOUIUIT]  put?  S0;i?j; 
■in  ui  oiqnjos  J0?t?a\ 


d o 


o o o o 


HNNH 

dodo 


jn-  in  i os  io  in 

rd  <M  I O CO  r-l 

do  i d o d 


t-  oo 

td  <M 

o o 


araro  c3,t3,arara  <s  t3  ro  d3 d tj  d3  d3  cs  d>  d3  d d3  d)  dJ  d 'o  d d!  d3  d d3  d3  d3 
dcasHadddridddd^addd^dd^dda^g^dd^ddd 
®33S333PS3333®3333®33“33353“335333 

sJooSoooo^ooooSoooogoogooosJogoogooo 

bn-d  «i-j  ’■n'-H  %-<  bn- m ^ «_(  bQ«d  bfltM  tw  m bfl'd  he'd  <d  tuo m— i <dt  <n 


i a 

d 'd  d d3  d 

d a u a ^ a 

2 =>  9 s S 3 

3 O 1:3  O ^ O 

fcX'HJ  tuO«4H  hjQ  *H 


LG!  ’Ojsj;  uono0dsui 


ft  c3 

II 


-a'^S 

5 o3  > 

Mp^ww 


ngco 
• ode? 


<d  £ 


dJ  - > .2 

O 

■m  d42 
®®43  c3 

W Wcocc 


<?q  co  n- 

O Cl  (M  X 
JH  CO  LO  Oi 
CO  XH  X> 


S ft 


ft  ^ 03 


1 ?-( 

1 0 43 
IdJ  o 
Iftce 


lO  t-  N-  <NI 
©OWN 
CC  1>  t-  t- 


P Hi 
dS° 
MOW 


O O N 
JNMN 


>» 

5 
« « 
S d 


o w 

CO  N- 
N-  O 


9 u 
o © d 
'C  a os 
d SSrd 


'ON  I^toujO 


■ <N  CO  CO  CO  CO  • 


WlOlftOCOCOCOOCUCDCOCOCOCDCOCDCyC 


CO  CO  CO  co  CD 


a 

o 

A 

is 

a 

2-0 


s « 
® j! 


® d5 

o ^ 

S ft 


d 

_4  O 

si 

.§  2 

430 

^ ® -w 
Odd  ftS  # 
□ pjd  ft  - « 

~ ^ d ft  o 
d.-,  33  03  ® ^ 


o ^ 
Ql^ 


□5  ^ ^ 

” d^'" 

« o 

'd  m 


03 

dogr 


;a 


o«j  .» 

60M  OtuO- 

^ 2 ^ ^ 13  ^ 
d^Osh 

bX)  ^ Hi 

h 03  e3 

•.dQ  Q 


- Jd  ra 
flXO.O?<D,  .S 

=*  fc'-E'S  fe  ® 
WAHpjs^sa^i 

ifi’w 

I^oShWooph 

* * * fH  * * 

03 

Q ft 


a a o 


TO  ft 

ft  ft 


d tn 

12§  - 
j ’Pnd 

1 9 


•d  d 

°MW 


S W 


gS5  S as 
;M1  •Ssap'«l30 

SO--..K 

V 

Ob 


d° 

d od  >ic8'2  oIh 

.Sos 

„ an  Tr'l  -O  M ^ -P 
C3  4J 


CO  CO  o o CO  co 
00  00  co  CO  (M  <N 
H HX^NCKN 
IO  lO  LO  LO  CO  CO 


>*  O 
P-q 

ft 

d 'O 


|o^®W|5 

Jr-5  . w -2  M « “ > -w  r • N?-05  > H 

OwOH  S bjo  o’ §■  ® bfl  bo1*1  o 

® ®d-t^d®--5  42ri^d  . ® 

C'dO^W^ftOPnCdW-ftccO 

* * fH**tH+*  M+Nl* 

Q d 


1 - 31 

i bo  d 


d ' d 

Q ft 


o«<  xfl 

° *1  ® § S « 2 

JsssSsa 

.2 

. §^!  d t? 

^ • d > 

c«ft  <J 


53 


OC  05 
C<J  co 


1 

1 1 

1 1 1 

l f>  00  1 CO  1 CM 

1 

1 ^ 

1 1 

\*:  | *1 

00  co 

1 1 

1 1 

OCOH 

o in  M O H O CO  IM  LO  O CO  O IO 

i c 

1 tH 

! CM 

rH  tH  CM 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 rH  rH  1 (M  1 rH 

l 1 1 

! <M 

1 

l 

l rH  1 (M 
l 1 

I l 

rHrH 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

HHO 

HNIMCOCOHINiMOHCOHM 

ON© 

1 1 

1 1 

©©OOOOOOOlftOOOcoOJ'H' 

1 1 

1 l 

O eo  CO 

OOltOOhOCOlflCOOlflOCJ 

UOM^ 

CO  CO  O <M  r-J 

1 1 

1 1 
l 1 

COCOCOOONCOINCOMMOoJOO 

1 1 

1 1 
l 1 

CO  IO  CO 

LO  -H  co  LO  <M  *—  •—  CO  «M  •*—  05  r— 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

O 

© © © rH 

05  rH 

1 1 

1 I 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

©■^©003  l 1 1 1 1 | © CO 

oo  © o 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

r i i i i i 

rHrHrHrH 

O rH 

l 1 

1 1 

1 l 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

HrlOHH  1 1 ! ! ! 1 rH  CO 

■^1  CO  -H<  CO  00  ft  !> 

CO  CO 

i i i 

1 i i 00  rH  CO  00 

i 

000500000C005 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

eO©-^H©rH00©©00©lt>00© 

O O O O O rH  o 

co  d 

l l i O rH  rH  rH 
1 1 1 

I 1 l 

i 

i 

i 

O O O rH 

rHrH 

rH  rH 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

0©©rH03©©rH©rH*-©rH 

! o 

l CO 

i | -+» 

i i CO 

i r-  o 

1 LO  io 

! 05 

i i i i i 

i i i i m 1 1— i 

i i i i © ij> 

i 

! cm  ! oo  co 
1 CO  l lo  co  co 

l 

1 LO 

1 ^ 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

IHO  I-#  lftrf<00  ICO  l 00 

i in  in  i co  i -h<  © -hi  i © i in 

! o 
1 

i ! d 
1 

i d d 

1 CO 

i 

1 1 1 1 © 1 rH 

1 1 1 1 l 

i 

i 

Id  i o o o 

i i 

1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

lOO  1 rH  IO©©  1©  [© 

1 

! CO 

1 

1 1 CO 

1 1 CM 

! co  o 

1 LO  03 

1 

1 05 

1 CO 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 I I 1 LO  1 05 

1 1 1 1 rH  1 O 

i 

i 

i 

i i 

l 00  i co 

1 CM  IH 

fM  -H 
CO  CO 

1 

1 LO 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 ffl,  © 1©  i © © <N  1 1 J" 

ION  It'  irUCOCO  1©  1 rJH 

! 6 

• i o 

! o o 

1 

1 1 1 1 O 1 O 

till  1 

l O l O O O 
i i 

1 d 

i 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

lo©  ,©  id©©  !d  1© 

1 Tt 

i i .»> 

1 LO  CO 

1 (M  CM 

1 

1 CM 

1 °°. 

till  1 1 

l i I I "H  i LO  1 

l I 1 I <N  I H l 

l l 

l O i CO  CM  H 
1 CM  1 rH  CO  CO 

i 

1 2S 
i o 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 I 

i GO  LO  l O | CO  (M  CO  I 00  l CM 
l O O 1 LO  ICMLOCM  IH  1 CM 

i d 
1 

• i o 

Ido 

1 CM 

I I l I O 1 O 
ii*i  i 

i 

i 

Id  1 d o d 

i i 

1 rH 
l 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

ido  id  iooo  io  io 

1 

1 cc 

1 1— 

• ! j>- 

i Is—  LO 

1 (N  O 

1 

l CO 

1 C5 

till  l l 

III  l O i l 

l l l I CO  • 00  I 

i i 

1 lO  i O 00  co 

l CO  1 CO  CM  CM 

I LO 

1 LO 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 CM  -H  1 CM  1 O rH  | 1 i— ' !<M 

l CO  O l H IHO  1 i CM  IO 

! c 
1 

1 ! o 

! d d 

i d 

i 

1 1 l 1 O I O 

fill  l 

id  i d d d 

i i 

! o 

i 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

lOO  i O lOO  1 io  lO 

1 II  III 

1 

1 

1 

1 LO  Ol 

1 ^ 

i 

i co 

1 rH 

1 1 1 1 rH  1 05  1 

1 1 1 1 rH  1 CO  1 

1 O 1 rH 

§8 

i 

I CM 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 II  II 

1 rH  rH  1 CM  1 rH  rH  LO  1 H 1 05 

1 rH  rH  1 ^ IHHCM  l(M  1 CM 

1 

1 

1 

1 

| d d 

! O 

I i I i O i © 

1 O 1 OO  O 

i l 

1 d 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

lOO  io  IOOO  io  io 

1 -£>  Uull  WUUV/V/U  - | 

f onnrt 

guaranteed- 
found 

guaranteed. 
found..  __ 

guaranteed- 

found 

found 

guaranteed- 
found 

guaranteed. 

found  

found 

guaranteed. 

found 

guaranteed. 

guaranteed. 
found  

guaranteed. 

found  

guaranteed- 
found 

found 

found 

guaranteed- 
found  

guaranteed  _ 

found 

found 

guaranteed- 

found 

found-- 

guaranteed- 

found  

guaranteed- 

found 

found.  

found 

guaranteed- 

found 

guaranteed- 

found.  

<V  ^ 

eo'  Ph  eo 

CO  >>  CO 

0) 

O ^ Ji  © 

Syl  g J? 

ftW  eS  a 

fSS  1 

^ O «M 

§ <H  : § 

Ti 

O 'd  V O 
-t->  <r>  +-> 

w h 

® 5 § ® 

ap  g p, 

sggs 

M Ph  S 02 


ft  | a 
o 3 

w «w 


05 

05  3 

3 > 

C CO 

;_l 

co  g 

2 5 

§2 

So 


05  £ 

S ° 

> Q3 

ft  s 

o.S 

O Sh 

PPAh 


05 


<Z  >>  05 

g d-O 
O > Ph 
O Q5  O 

PAt>PA 


<D  ^ 

Th  <V 

OM 


0^0 


00  l 05  I o 

CO  I 05  I 00 


COCJN 

lo  r-  oo 

j>i>  x> 


cm  o 


*5  05  TH  - 
■Cl?!' 
5 CO  CC 


CM  CM 
J>  Jt- 
lo  lo 


0105(J5  05C50000HH(MN 
O CO  o H H N (M  (N  CM  CM  CM  CM  <M 
CMCMCMCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO 
CC^5COCCCi505^sDCOCCJCS5Ci5CO 


•a  a: 


a ?5 
co  js 
ft  O 


co.a 

.£  .ft 

a-rf 

Hts 


°o 


.2  5 

rtf  03  4->  ^ 

S Pi  cd  o 


o 

&gf§2 

O •£  o '43  W 

ft  c3  ft  c3  03 

A '3  A o q 
ft  S ft  £ Ph 

« j2  « is  - 


TJ  £ £ 


0<  W2 

^ xji  *E  ^ 

id  coo  a P 
hO-s  «m 
3B®h'o,  £ft-< 

. a . nSw-g 

c W-§*.S3£§ 

ids! 


e_i  0 ■ 

2 S 
o§  S 

bx>  05  CJ 

ftf=HH 
o ™ft 

g«| 

1X1  s3Ah 


<D  O 

S ffioSg  i.Sg.2g^s 

OOSogOcDm^Ol^O0-^0- 
' • 1 H 1 O 4J  ^ i I 

I ^ eS  O " 

i^w° 


o ’§  2 6 • 2 6 g 6 2 

§S°iW°3©S 


5 o m 

Sop 


opq- 


*3 

0}  ft 

ft  ° 
r1  ft 

-Ah 


pO  0PS©P©3Pca 
O r-H  3 Ph  I 3 I 05  ’3 

■g  s^'ga^'g^'g^ 

n-^b  ft  ft  h h h q ,b 

3 a<!  H 'SH  '©H  'a 
£.sj  g*  * g g*  g 
W M 

S< 

w 


«D^61' 


>*  >. 

5«as 


03  g 
.^■c 

r/2  05 

. 2 a 

Oft  <5 

a 

H 


s oM 

03  oO^  Ph 

Ah’S  . o O cd 

® a«2^  ® 3 

Ph  C . . Ph  O 

ftCOOfthA 

a a 

w w 


3 05 

O ‘ 


05  S 
+3  -2 
02  02 


1=1  fl 
X5  X3 
o o 
ft^>^ 

S3* 

’S.  AA 


a 
o 
02 

>,T3(N 

Pg  •« 

03  1-1  O 

ft  -^-P 
§ ft-^  03 
o 03.2  ftftj 
OX  O “ ° 
o3  ifta^W 
^ . • 
S | 

0^3  SrJ  X 


ft  CO  rj  CD 

tfi  fl  o P 
„ o®  o 
«02  a 


1-1  t>>  ft_  >>_ 

. 05  tD  'O  05  'O 

53  2^  ‘ 


05  hJ'^O  ! 

■P  1=1  p 
ft  21-1 

a 2 


as  ft 
.3  Ah  55  g s' 

M=3^co^ 

^ Si'-jA^ 

°«  . 03  . . . 

23  P * * 

p 03  03  05 

W H Ah  05 


N o 
.O® 

ph^°3 
05  i— i 
>>  c3  >, 

2'3^ 
2®^ 
05  ft  O 

r=lo2  o 


CD  02 

. p . 
£<2* 
odBW 

> * t3  * 


be  bo 
c3  c3 
ft  ft 


-b  23 

05  05 

■X3  P 
m co 


05  0) 

6 & 

poo 


CD  S3  a 17 

05  £ ^ W 
p g g 05 
>b  23  &D 

.S55  a 

'gSS  s 

> ” 


<D  ^ vy  ^ 

»ils 

S O o 


TABLE  VI. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Fertilizers  Collected  in  1917  (continued) 


54 


o 

feO 


o2 

£ O 

Ph 


*}U99  J8d 


nuao  jad 
•aiqniosui 


nuao  aad 
•p9}j9A9j 
pu'B  aiqniog 


•}U99  J3d  ‘J9}BA\  UT 

eiqnios  ‘o5X  ‘qsB;o<i 


•}U93  J9(I 
‘ITBJOJ, 


•}U90  J9d 
‘9AI}ob  pu'B  9iqn 
-[OS  J9}BA\.  IB^OX 


;U90  J9d  ‘oiubS 
-jo  aiqrqosui 

J9JBA3.  9AI}0BUI 


•;u99  J9d  ‘oiubS 
-ao  aiqniosui 
aa^BAi.  9Aijoy 


•;u90  J9d 
‘otuBSao 
oiqrqos  J91BM 


•;U90  J9d  ‘S^{BS 
BIUOIUUIB  pun  S9^Bjq 
-iu  ut  ajqnjos  aa^B^w 


^©MIOtX^OOOHCOH 

ooodddooHHN 

OOr-CCOCOCOOCO-OH-^COCS 

ohhhohhhmncm 

oq  co  co  oq 

o 

0.33 

0.29 

CO 

d 

d 

o> 

0.68 

1.07 

LO 

o 

88 

d 

1.82 

1.19 

0.90 

0.73 

0.75 

CO 

o 

ShS 
o d 

CO 

<M 

d 

co 

CO 

o 

T— 1 

CO 

d 

(N 

o 

ss 

o 

05 

d 

(M 

m 

d 

0.78 

0.81 

0.40 

0.57 

0.45 

(N 

o 

(N  1C 

H O 

d d 

o 

CO 

o 

LO 

d 

o 

CO 

rH 

o 

o 

CO 

CO 

d 

s 

d 

(M 

LO 

d 

d o 

0.37 

0.58 

0.46 

8 

d 

£-  CO 

o o 
d d 

(M 

o 

d 

0.12 

o 

d 

Tf 

d 

CO 

d 

o 

d 

0.12 

CO  rH 

o o 

0.47 

0.07 

0.21 

LO 

d 

0.14 

0.21 

oq 

o 

d 

r- 

d 

GO 

d 

(M 

d 

co 

d 

^+H 

o 

d 

TtH 

<N 

o 

to  00 
co  oq 

d d 

odd 

I CO  CO 
I d (M 


ooacooHoco 


ONOtono^oi 


OdOdOCOOOOOOtSlOO 

WNNMNcilMIlciHNIMH 


o oo  os 

O H IN  N Cl 


Ot-OdOlOOt-OOOOOOO 
C0C0t>0d  00  05dddrH05OO 


oio  omoominc^i 
coco  ^ oo  od  oo  oo  cc 


»wrOo3,73rO  ^ ^ ^ ^ w 

^o^oo^o^o^o 

bjQ«W  bfle+-<«4H  5fl«4-l  tlJ0«M  tlD eH — ( 


O O O © O 03 
H pH  <N  (N  H H 


'O  ! T3  1*0 
$ | $ ; $ 


p i i 

X3  OS'S  o3  >0  53  ^ S'O'd 

pSrjS-jOnjd-jlSo^ 

o^o^o^o^o^oo 

i«t-i  bDu-i  b£q-i  bom  tuo •4—i  «*— i 


a 

03  'O 

*2  a 


o3  T3  ^3  T3  'C 

Jjcjjdcc'je 

2.  © 5.  o o o g,  e 

bfl«M  bfl<M«M«M  tuo •»— i 


WT3 

i§ 


WO 


w 


>.  >» 
+5  +i 

55 


i®§  , 

ilfl  il 

I O CD  53  l S3 

'OPH®  ' CO 


q,a  *on  uonoadsui 


•ON  I'BIOIJJO 


t-  CO 
^ J>- 

t-ir- 


I CO  H CO 
iCi  OJ> 
I^COCi 


CDCDLOLOIOIOtH^t^t^COCOCO 
COCOOOQOOqCTLOlOJ^t-*- 
LO  lO  CO  CO  CD  CO  CO  CO  CO  f — 


CiONNM>0QC 
OiOlHHHrHOOC 
H H 00  00  00  00  r 
CO  CO  ^ ^ CO  C 


s 

£-5 


2 P 

S u 

S © 

X X 


o>  © 

a a 


e ' 

< 

I f 

* c 
(^73 

a a '3  S 0-  ^ 

cs  >»  ® « 
a «-*>  © fz5  ts 

fl  >>  O fl  _ ,Q 

gawS^fe 

ftL) 

d ^ C3  .»2  . 

S la** 

«»id!w 

£sl  ■§ 

Q.  <3  HH 

as 

w 


CO 


gCG 

03  i—i  © 

W-“  ® 

*g 


ff.S 

8 riK? 

© © 
£ £ 


tfl  3 a 

os  a g o 

H'S-U-O 

q ©GO  bfl 

© 'P  CO  w 

x^°8«5 

p 


W.C 

.a 

II 

Itg 

PS* 


O bfl 

W « 


© 

®P4 


tm.Sc 

.a  & 

o 


a-r 

■ CO  > 

! o <® 


_ © . _ 

Ph  © w 03  w 
>0  ie 
©•r  © ^ © 

w£w  os 

3 2 fl  c : 


s 

03 


a 

.2 1— • 

ll 

a 

a ^ o 

8°|h 

0(S>  © 


© « C 


© © 

© 

*3,2  ^-5  © 
& B 

a _.  o ^ 

1 „ a=“  g Is  ^ 

© caO?  sz 


W 


> bo 

IS 


E S3  w S3  © C3:  fa  ,03  S'— ' w 
© > S>^  ►-§  3 3 
©W  © Pd  £pt|  qW  03<tl<3 

■ So 

^©o£g. 

O JP  pLJ 

w 

© ©* 

© o3  a 

W C-  3 

^ 3 

aw 

| w o 

55 


D CO  O CO  O O 
NNo6o5N(N1 


X)OCOH^IO 

bHOHOO 


O CO 
O en 


00  O GO  LO 
lOCOlO*^ 


o to 
O CO 


.CiOOOO  | 

lOHOr 


^ oo  »>  io  lo 

ddddo 


lo  h<  oq  co 

^CO  H W 

dodo 


lo  co  cvi 

CO  CO  CO  CM 

o d d d 


co  lo  <m  co 
dodo 


LO  (M  O CM 
rH  O O O 

dodo 


OCDWOIOO 
<M  CO  00  ^ cd  cd 


O CM  LO  CO  O O 

o o r—  cn  o o 


d 


|>  CO 

d 


lOCOOOLOmOhOCOCOOHO^OHOHCO 
(M  (M  LO  LO  (M  O CO  »N  O d Cl  (M  O O 00  00  (N  (M  Cl 


OO  rH 
(M  r-  <M 


LO  O 
O rH 


LO  GO  O O 
oohh 


OlO(M(M^O(MCOniOOLO,NOCO^O(MCOTtiWN( 

HHHHOOHHOOHHHHH(MMfOCoddO( 


CO  <M 

d o 


O (M 

rH  O 

d d 


oo  o 
O o 


00  -H 
rH  oq 

d o 


O o 

d d 


o lo 
d o 


GO  CO 
<M  rH 

O O 


o CO 

d d 


o <D 
faD  bJO 
ft  ft 
ft  ft 
v a> 

<D  <D 

w w 


S-.  ^ 


LO  ^ 
CO  O 

d o 


I'd 


a) 


ft  . ft  i ft 

ft  TJ  ft  ft  'O 

^ ci  £ a (h  o 

3 3 B 3 B 3 

3 © 3 O 3 O 

bo«-H  tuO'+H 


I 

d 

03  T3 

So  <2 


a 

cB  <p  <0  rp  'O 

a a a a 
^3333 
5,  o o o o 

bfl<4H<4-4  <4-4  <4-1 


Pi  I Pi  I 
c3  ‘O  03  <d 
5h  c >-(  cj 
03  3S  03  33 

3o3o 

bfl<4-.  SD <4-4 


X5 

I 

d 

33  o3  X3 

Pi  3 P) 

03,0 

m tUD<4— i 


I'g  !'§ 


a? 


a? 


I 


■ ■ i ■ ft  i ft  i ft  i •— i i i— i • 

rC5rOpdrO  0373  ft  ft  T3  ft  73  ft  T3 

ftftsua^a^ft^ft^ft^ft 

oooo^o^o^o^o^o 

...  ...  V,r.X  K/3.y.  K/3.X  Kn.X 


!2  I'g 

| a> 

Id  ! a 


2 ^ 

I3  o 

bC*3 


I PI 

T3  d <P  <p 

d 3 3 PS 

o 3 o o 

MH  tU0«+H  <4H 


bX)f 

a32 


03  — 

PI  03 
03  +-> 

o 02 

in 

9 03  d 

3 A!  >>  a 
a)  B O 3 
OOKQ 


WO 


c c 


3 « >>  o w 

B O jj  h fi 

3ft  ► g 3 
m p 03  — ps 
OQ!>OQ 


1 00  GO  O rj 

I 03 

!SS8 

1 LO 

1 CO  rH  GQ  1>  CO 

1 05  1 l 00  1 

1 rH 

I O GO 

l CO 

I CO 

1 GO  l 00  O 

1 O Oi 

1 o GO  (M  CO 
IHCOOiO) 

1 00 
.IS 

l (M  H GO  03  CO 

i oo  r-  Oi 

l GO  1 **+  1 00  1 o 

i o 

1 00 

1 <M 

1 l>  rH 

I o 

1 (M 

1 o 

l LO  l 00  GO 
105  I J>-  <M 

1 LO  GO 

1 CO  JtH 

D 

l l>  Jb»l> 

1 GOi> 

l GO  Jt>  X>  X> 

1 GO  1 S K I J> 

1 IH 

1 GO 

i r- 

l GO  1 GO  X> 

1 iH  I> 

> a 
>>  a 

33  03 

*33  & 
-C  « 
coM 


dS 

£ d 


N SO  to  tD  03  03 

x>»  J>*  J>-  I''-  J>- 

M <M  <M  <M  05  05 


_ I LO  LO  LO  CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  LO  LO  LO  LO  LO  LO  3>  < 
OOClfMCl^TTiTti^-t’tCDGOGOGOOgGOGOC 
*“  ~ - - • - “ - ■ - lOlololololololoi 


i^TMOLOlOlOLftlOlOlOiCiOi 


COGfiNNN00  00  0505  00HHH(MN(M 
^0HHHHHHHOJNIMN(M(MN(M 

ilOLOCOCOGOGOGOGDGOGOGOCOCDGOCCGDGO 


go 

O 

W Q) 


U ft 

§o^ 


ft.S 

4J4J  pft  C3 

*3  8*03 

5WS322 

'O  • 

.*  o 

3 W a 3 d m 

5 O*  3 

H .©  W 


— o 

* s§ 

. TO 

I§°a 

'O 

PI 

S3  2d 

CO  05 

O 03  g . 

O JH  t>. 
M jr*  2 ^ 
CL,  03  * 

2 M 


>> 

W a 

03*' 

5 o. 
>co 

-Be 

o o 

MO 

ft  QJ 

Sf! 


'O 

PI 


^ bn 

^ a? 

a 03 


□■OH 


u ...  ! . 


oft 


<M  03  03  . 

<5  ^ K M ^ ^ 

* * >>* 


5-2  a 
cl  £J'S 

03  S "2 

J3C3w2sh23  ■ 

§ o S 03  03  > 

!*|^i  il 

L O O '"tl  . • L-, 

*-3  t-s<4-4  Ph  M MOM 

I*  S* 

O W 


fl.2 

S S 
S a 

M02 

S<a 


03 

+3> 

c3 

a 

a 

<D  f3 

cl  W 


o 

O f-4 

^ 03 


d . c 
om  3 
oseq^M 

Ora 


OG 


w o o *-< 

« S-2  >.  2 

&fl+3>  co  3 

r-  03—1  o 

oMMOl-, 

• 

pq  csM  osp 

a qj 

+ >1  L >»* 

03  03 

Q O 


few  to  d' 


U-H®  3 

3 S £ 

Lh  3 ^ i— 

Dg|S 

o3  5 

«M!w 
£^-®  . 
£q«0 
>»  , * 


O)  _ 

M bo  2 


co  03  d ~ 
WrCOfl  n 
S «.u 
; 2 hj  Ah 

:wS- 

1 03  C3 

dOJ'3 

tuo*  cu 

W ft 

W CG 


a s 

03  p 

ft's 

n d.2 

fe  fe2 g 

d > ^ 

H 83.8 

C5  > «3 

X ^ d o 
° rt  o o 

• 2 ° Ah 
<!bW 

* 'g 

Ah  « 


i to  o3 

IfaSp 

fn  M fe  p4  2 

w|S|w 

* * * 


g* 

I 

ft  Lh  c3  M 

m « 


°|Q  «P 


« 03  pq 
03 

rd 

+J  -i  tS 

□ Fflij 

•5WU^ 

2 6 S S 

►2  8 2 

O'H'H'H 

oddd 

Lh  03  03  03 

EC  03  tC 

03  c3  c3  c3 

oft  ft  ft 

" 03  U O 
^ L L L 

ri  3 3 3 

mWMPh 


TABLE  VI. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Fertilizers  Collected  in  1917  (continued) 


56 


82“ 
Xi  O 
pH 


•}U99  J8d 

•mojL 


•}U90  J9d 

‘aiquiosui 


•}U9D  J9d 
*p9}  J9A9  J 
Pub  giqnios 


•}U90  J9d  'J9}T3A\.  UI 

giqnios  ‘o5H  lqsB;oa 


•}U90  J9d 

Teioi 


© 05  CO  CO 

in  in  m 


t-  CO 
CO  l - I 05 


lOMfl 

ocio 


IHOOOONOO 
I CO  O 05  © 05  O 05 


on,c,HOOMOH®icio©OHOt'inoot'iooooi 


lOOOroOOOOrllflOOOl 

<©©deo©©©r^©t>©< 


I 0 05  10 

iodrit- 


lONINlOOWOOlOMrSCO^lC^Oi 

IrHrHrHOOOrHrHOOOOOOOrH, 


|COCOCOCOCO©©©©©©rH 

iddddoddoHodd 


OOOOOOOOOHOI^INOI 
© HHOOIMIMHH  * — H 


>r-lOOOOOOOOOOOOrHOOOOOOOOOOOod 


•^U90  J9d 
‘9Aip,B  puB  9iqn 
-ios  J9}13A4.  IT3JOJ, 

|>  CO  05  CO 

coooco 

dodo 

CO 

CO 

05  r- 
tM  00 

rH  O 

1.49 

0.84 

1 05 

1 CO 

i d 

8 

d 

l tO  <M 

I CO  (M 

! o d 

co 

© 

! CO 

1 TtH 

! d 

j CO 

1 ® 

1 rH  © 

1 00  © 

! © d 

I H<  © CM  tO 

1 CM  rH  (M  H 

'©odd 

0.31 

0.36 

I co 

1 ^ 

1 © 

1 X^ 
l CO 

i d 

qugo  J9d  ‘oiubS 

CO  ^ rH  r- 

rH  CO 

1 t-H  CO 

! rH 

(M 

I to  00 

CO 

| ^ 

1 CO 

! © rH 

| CO  rH  00  © 

1 © rH 

i i>* 

1 co 

-jo  9iqn[osui 

CO  CO  H H 

T*  co 

1 CO  TjH 

l CO 

CO 

1 rH  CM 

CM 

1 CM 

1 rH 

' *"1  ^ 

1 © rH  © rH 

1 CM  CM 

1 rH 

1 

JO^'BAi  OAI^O'BUJ 

o d d d 

d 

d d 

! d d 

! d 

d 

! d d 

d 

1 © 

! d 

! d d 

1 © © © © 

1 © © 

1 © 

i d 

•;u9o  J9d  ‘OIUBS 

0500tH 

05 

O rH 

i co  o 

l to 

co 

1 CM  tO 

© 

l CM 

! 

I co 

I © 00  00  rH 

! CO  rH 

! © 

1 -H 

-jo  oiqniosut 

H (N<M  H 

CO 

Tt<  <M 

l (M  (M 

1 rH 

r“* 

I rH  rH 

rH 

! ^ 

1 © 

1 rH  rH 

| © © © rH 

1 rH  rH 

1 ^ 

1 <M 

J91'BAA  9AtJ0y 

o o o o* 

d 

d d 

! O O 

1 O 

o 

1 © © 

© 

i © 

1 © 

1 © © 

1 © © © © 

1 © © 

i © 

1 O 

•JU90  J9d 

o to  CO  03 

<NJ 

05  t-H 

I CO  to 

! CO 

HH 

!c<i^ 

i i 
i i 

! 00 

1 © © 

I CM  © rH  I 

1 rH  CM 

i i 
i i 

1 Ol 

‘oiubSjo 

■^hO-^ 

CO 

(M  O 

i tjh  oq 

1 <N 

O 

I oo 

© 

i i 

1 CM 

1 © rH 

IOHH  1 

1 © © 

i i 

1 © 

9iqniOS  J91T3M 

o o o d 

d 

d d 

i d d 

1 d 

o 

' d d 

© 

i i 
i i 

1 © 

1 © © 

i d d d i 

1 © © 

i o 

•^U99  J9d  ‘S^X^S 

®00®N 

to 

o to 

1 CO  05 

! 

00 

! rH  CO 

1 rtH 

i ^ 

! co  © !^c 

1 J>  © 

i 00 

! rH 

r?iuouiuinpuB  sa^BJx 

O (M  O 

05 

co  co 

1 00  CO 

1 CO 

1 <M  © 

1 CO 

i © © 

1 rH  CM  1 © 

1 rH  (M 

1 CM 

! '"I 

-iuui  g^qn^os  J9?t?a\ 

o o o o 

o 

d d 

1 o o 

1 d 

d 

i d d 

© 

1 © 

i © © 

id©  1 O 

! © © 

i © 

i o 

05 

a 

^ T3  73 

% a a a a 

2 33  33  s a 

? o o o o 

ih«hih 


a ; 
ce  73 
% a 

03  rj 

33  o 

tJJ'-h-l 


a 

t3  53  73 
a ^ a 
3^3 
O g,  o 

«t-i  tuO'M 


I 73  |73 


73  »’ 

a b 

33  S 


\S 


niqiiRininiciiHiii 

.3  73  m3  73  £3  73  c3  "735  03  73  03-073  03  73  73  73 

ffl7J3rj«c37K3n|jfii33is733 
^O^OO^O^O^O^OO^OOO 
bci;  tuo4=!  4=5  &o4=!  tm«w  ta-b  ba<w«w  ha-in-w-P 


a g 

o s 
■S  bo 


73  73 

a a 

33  33 

o o 


a i a 

63  73  63  73 

m a n • 

os  g os 

33.  © 33  5 

ha<b  ha<b 


£ia  ‘ON  uopogdsui 


•on  I*PJBC 


bo 

iso  be,®  £3 

C £733  33 

2 5 >•§ 
£ •§ 

^MMte 


10(N0  05 
CO  00  © Tt* 

rr!  22  £2 

Jt-  £-  t-  t— 


ft  03 

<X>  h-> 


a 

II 

82 

MO 


© <M 

to  o 

CO  CM 
COX> 


X o 
12  ft 
> c3 
>>  Pi 


i a>  »© 

1 -ft  d 

'CChH 


fl  33  *> 

gggn 

22  3a 
ch  «33  » 


>12 

gS 

® 73 

P3*  o 


o I- 

rH  05 

i>  x> 


CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  ■ . - - 

(N!5J(M(N(M(M(M(MN(M(MW'M(M(MCOCOi 
rHrHrHrH^HrHrHrHrHrHH^-HrHrHrHrH' 
COCO^DCOCDCD^OCOCO^OCOCOOCOOi^OCOt 


T^r^COOOOOCOCOi 
)COCOrHrHCOCOCOCMCM(MCM<M< 
t^r}i^^imOWCOCOOOO{ 

'COCOCOCDCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOC 


rH  rH  i>-  J>-  tO  LO 

o O to  to  to  to 

■:  ' •_ 


S w 
£ x 
® « 
ft  h 

<0 

O £ 

00  * 
4)  ^ 

Sa 


l| 

(3  £ 

c3  fc. 

P,™  . 

|§S 

0X3  73' 

•as« 

!««' 
8 S c 

33  %X3 

v< 


&4  O 

Ro 

o . 


3 8 -Jag 

CO  . S « C3“° 

r1  c3  t-i 

gaeaflg-g 

. <1>  o O « 

^asd  ! 

* x>  * X! 

O O 

M Eh 


os  d 

SSo^ 

al^ogo 
S ® =3  S .S  a 

f-H  hH^*— 

W « F3 

> O 03  ^ 

+5  > 33  .73  M O 
03  Ph  > 

go^gS'H 

lo||l| 

ft 


o 


x ra 

4-^0 


> o g 


Dpo-h  . 

^F< 

rr^O 


I- 

03  M 


TM  S • ■■  _ 
<J  _,  M o . r8 

'S  ?h  lJ  <x»  a? 

^ n M CO  • N 

a>  ° .d  o •*-! 

^ O J L 03  ^ 

. _ * . - 


k°3 

<3^ 


. o o 
ioo 

x;  >>  >. 

m ft  § 

o ft  a 


32.d  33  33 
'5CLCCW-3 
^ O1^  ^ « 

j!Lj  05  d (3 

73  O O 


M.2  ^-a.s§  «73 

^Xd-Pga).  ® 

.d  C3  Hr/)  n flH 


•-?  3 

MftnO 


35  Q ft 


d sh'®x 

®0  o3  C3 

ha* 

K 


o®  - , 02  o 

. -X®  fta  at-fl  a 

Q2  M 63  r<  p|J  J3  u Q, 

w # « (3  S 03  ^ 

plfl 

* 2“+  CS*  c3 

ft  Mo: 


;aff-0- 


57 


lOOCLO 
I fM  OJ  CO 


© 

O CO 


o o 

d d 


o oo  co  ro 

d d d d 


O co 

HNO 


lO  o o 

COON 


i O CO 

i d CD 

l CsJ  CM 


CNlOl 
fOT)H  N' 


lOONOOlONO^CO^lOOOOJlOOOCOOOJ 

'HHNHHHNCONCOhHNNNMod^^ 


o»t  OCJ 

^ co  cd  o 


OOlCNOr 

HHOOHt 


laiioiocoLO^coioiocoioeo 

iddddddodddod 


00  © 
© o 


^COCvJCvJ^COLOr-lO^lOrHCOCOCO^COLO^lO^lO^LO 

donHoddddddddddddocodddo 


I o o o o 


i CO  o -o  co 

I CO  <M  <M  CO 

i o o d d 


NOONO 

HOHO 

odd  h 


j LO  rH 

I o o 

‘ o d 


ONCOO 

dodo 


o d o 


rH  O O 

odd 


o o o 
d d o 


i o o 
i d d 


CO  LO  ^ 

odd 


co  co 

d d 


io  to 

03  rH 

d d 


o o 
d o 


oo  o 

rH  03 

d d 


c3  'V  c3  TJ  'O  c3  T? 

2 S3  g P 3 g 3 

3 O 3 O O 3 O 

bcft  be^ft  box 


3 

os -a 

b s 


§ § 


s 

03  73  0373737373  03  73  00  73  73  73  -3  73  73  C 373 

= 0^0000^0^000^00^0  = 
bJO  «4-H  bjOMH«+He+He+H  b/)'4H  bjQMH  «4H  fcfl  «+H  <+H  fcUO  «IH  fcfl 


<0 


© 03 

co  d 


X>  © t*  CO  10 

co  co  o d d 


03  CO 

d d 


53  a 

g o 

bjo«+H 


c^'O  c3  T3  c3  ^ ^3 

^3^^53533 
3o3o3o3oO 
be'n  bO'w  beft  boft  <w 


X >» 
c3  O 

OK 


3 1 t,jp 

V 2 


* 3 

CSS'S 
> ° 3 2 
<PO  02  02 


eot~  co  in 

QONrtl 
CO  OS  o 00 


bfl  1 be  i 

b+j  is  1 
= t,  3 | , ; 

f ^ O 1 

cc  X os  ^ 

SB’S  lbs 

g w g | > 3 

?H  £h  | 0>  O 

0^0  '!>Ph 


a £ 

*2  c3 

5 > 

Ph  W 


r-  r-  r-  © © 

0000000 
co  co  co  co  co  co  co 


03  03  CO  CO  T-H  H fH  , 

j>  r-  r-  00  00  00  ( 
00  00  00  Cfi  GO  00  00  ( 

IO  10  10  IlO  10  ift  LO  I 


^^0303030300000000  03  O1C0C0 
CO  CO  J>-  Is—  i>-  J>»  '*H  -,H  LO  LO  LO  IO  IO  LO 

<©©©©©©©©© 
cocococococococococoocoococo 


ooGOgococoooo 

03  03  O O CO  CO  CO 

i>-  N C^  CO  CO  CO  C3  03  03 
0303COCOCOCOrti-Hr^ 


ft 

GO 

O 

5 

3 
O 

ft 

« X3  J© 

S « * ©fe  3 

3 © cs  irf,r’  © 

flSaS^S 
£2  e o .3  =8  c 

W Si  CO  *H  3 
© H ft  3 l2 

S'O 

' a 2 «0°  £s 

O ^ X 72-0 
©■£©» 
+*■03  O 

02  Q S 


< 'C  r 


~ o 

O o <•< ' 

BS 

(h  ± 

© C 
O 
X o 

xft 

ft 


3ft 

3!  * 
O 


« '-30 
fthm 

G CJrH 

Il^l 

SS  Q,  >>  • 

o J3  g-  C3  -5 

S O to  7* 

02  O© 


S © 
2^ 

s © s 


n,=  OS 

•gcJ 

00  3 
ffl  f3  .►? 


1 

- ® "S  s s 

n a as 

hS0  4) 

E o 
o oS  ^ o 
3* 


g 3 


© C3 

s s 


«|||p; 

6 o 


x;  b<  * x 
00  o 

o 

64 


Sb  M S 

I-S  ^ o ^ 

o ’S 
o»fl« 

PQ  > ftS' 

Ph02 

cS 

w 


© © 
T-j  ^ 'C 
VO© 


> 
^ 4J 

S « 

o ft 
^ ? 
ip 


W2 


o o 
Ph  Ph 


flli 

o ^ 3 

o 

Ph 


>>  ® 

« 03 
&»3 

§o§ 

t-  wpq 

SS  . 

s^° 

w O ' 

£0 

o 

3 


o 
XI 

PM 

5 

^3 
© o 

73  to  (U 
^.22  3 

> o 
0 03  pq 

x A fe 
iJ®  I 
W 2« 
© B © 

o*  o 

3 


0 S 
o o 


a®so 
© o tsd 
S 0332 

|2d8^ 
S x “ 
^=8^  2 

53^ 
> © J 

O0P3  | 

o ©r-  © 

PP,o  E-ioo 
o* 


O 0 


. © M 
be  3 
3 c3 

M ft  OO 
03 

■3  2H 
2 s J 


3-3  ^ 

® § ft 
2 <2  3 
0 © „ 

.«S 

g©  .3 

cc  ^ ® 

. . X ft 

hSQS 

cq 

O o O <5  © 
u t-  1-,  kH  be 

ei-i  ^ 

■ti  X X o ft 

© © © -t-1  © 
M W to  © 
c3  cti  c3  © to 
X X X 
000^ 

U t<  tn  H 

3 3 3d 
ft  PP  PP  Xfx 


73 

3 

M rtf 

- C 

>>hH 

© 

3 73 
K>  O 

«E 

© 


ft 
.0 

^d  s, 

■§«« 

w ^ ft^rt  bo 
^ wM„coft 

x 2 -•  © © ® 

— © [>  cti  c3 'd 

.Sq^  ft  p-w 

'S  s s s s s 

S O O CQ  03  o 

.2  *H  ?H  w W U 

<D  <*H  cm 

O . fi  ft  . 

O <P  K > CD 

W CQ  d w 

03  05  d Sh  Jh  cj 

Q.X  X'O'Ox 
3*  o o X X o 

5 ^ ^ tj  ^ 

d 3 3 g r 3 

i5ft  ft 


TABLE  VI. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Fertilizers  Collected  in  1917  (continued) 


58 


aa  'ON  uot}oadsui 


'ON  IT3PUJO 


2 P 

9 © 

© 0) 

K 

a® 

. © 
o £ 

® 35 

45  45 

Sc. 

g£ 

""  r* 


fl  I ft  i ft 

S'O'g'O'a'c-a  ft  ts  ft  ts  ft  ts  ft  ft  ts  S ts  ts  S >ri  S ts  ts  S ts  Sts  Sts 

ftftftftftftfHft&HftfHftf-4ftf-irtP-ip3rjtHr1tHr1r3S-trj&-(Mt-ir1 

?.00000030303  0?0?0?00303003  03030 

tuO't-i  tuo «i— 1 ifl't-i  Sh«m  Sh«m  tm«M  >4-i  bc>4-i  bfl<4-4«M  bo<4H  tiflsM  tuo «+ci 


Cutler 

Greenwood  _ 

Huntingburg 

Vevay  

1 

1 

1 

0 

£> 

ft 

O 

Orleans 

Rushy ille  „_ 

Parr  

Knightstown 
Richmond  __. 
Borden  

New  Albany  . 

Boonville  

Chrisney  

Jasper  

Huntingburg 

Troy  

New  Albany 

Petersburg  _ 

Petersburg  _ 

Boonville  ___ 

Dubois  _ 

Orleans 

Knightstown 

7141 

7734 

6877 

7767 

8 

3 

6824 

6896 

7192 

7814 

7836 

7872 

7239 

7562 

7056 

0 1 00 

S iS 

6936 

7240 

7132 

7133 
7561 

6859 

7974 

7813 

aifllOOOH 


^.*^5JNNNNw‘cif>ifflin®toooQoo5i. 
SSSa^^^^ffiffiroroinwioinininintootd 


OOOHHCOW' 
00  00  00  Ci  Ci  Gi  Ci  < 


§ u ■”  £ ft  ® 

§-^>..aQ^o  ■ gs 

Ifilllll"! 


O 

-_,ft 


> n <=>  »>i 

5 . m 5 « 

J££To-3 


A 
_ £-2 
a.ft^ 
& 


_,  3 

HOS 

oOS 

05  XC 

S3 


B 


05 

o£ 


!f  iJiiil  sail  iig*tis  iiJi; 

2^0  o 2 Saj-rja-S  ®.Sn;2M  ft^S  *>3^3 


“S4SeS 

o 2 


’3)  c3 
. ©2 
-fig. 


o * 

.23 

o 

s 


'!  Sa  . 5 'S^ss  o »&«“«  a S*2-s'§oipi;'SM  3 s1”  S)oB3f  a Be  a a® 

:|s,|°|P|s:p|f4,?<&|?!,sl?l?|?|??l?|?«|P|s«« 

0000  3 3 3 3 3 w 3 3 3 w <i 


59 


i i 

i i 
i i 

11.0 

14.1 

! 

i i 

1 1 1 

i:i! 

1 I i O CO  i 

1 1 1 03  CO  l 

l 1 l 03  03  1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 l 1 1 1 1 i I 

i i i i i i 
!!!!!! 

I ! 

i 

| too  00  <3 
jcDONO 

00 

rH 

N OMMOOMlOCOOll'HODOtO  i |©N©CiO©©M©rH  ONtH  [ x*  I 

,_l  HrlrlHNNHrlHHHHO  i IHrlOfflOHHrlHH  HHH  ] rH  j 

o ! 

00 

01 

5UO*-^ 

m o Oi  <M 

H H H rH 

©C3©J>  C’#aOHOMOI'MOOM  i lOlOOMNOt-OtJO®  O CO  tO  OM  O OS  O •># 

oo  d co  H ^ n n n n d d d d o d i i oo  oc  o d o n d n n n (oxooohoocoo 

I 1 

1 l 
i I 
i t 

1 1 

1 1 

CO  CO  03  03 

| | | 
i i i 
i i i 

II  | l l l 1 1 1 1 

O O Oi  | j O 03  J j j [ j | j 

H HO  i l H H l * 1 l 1 | l 

O rH  CO  ! 1 O rH  O rH 

rH  rH  rH  1 IHHHH 

1 1 
l 1 

* m oo  oo  h-  o co  o o 

£ © © O G>  CO  SO  HH 

co  c-  oi  io 

rH  rH  rH  rH 

ooooot-cooooooooirooocsco'^'#  odi-ioooihcoi-icocio 

dr-ldco-^odoooooooo  ©rHrH©rH©rHrHrH 

! co 

1 o 

0.60 

0.57 

4.87 

e 

d 

1.32 

1.53 

1.12 

0.70 

0.62 

3.48 

Oi  l C<J  1 — 1 iNlfl  llfi  lO^<  1 rH 

r»H  1 CD  CO  ISOtO  ICO  1 00  f"  100 

O IOO  IOO  lO  lOO  IO 

CO  1 o 

00  l bO 

O ! rH 

! CO 

! o 

O CO 

03  rH 

o d 

1.43 

03 

o 

0.38 

0.37 

0.38 

i O 00  1 03 

1 CO  rH  1 00 

j d d j d 

rH  *00  03  IMIS  1 IO  1 © CO  1 Oi 

CO  ININ  INN  IO  ICON  IN 

O IOO  lOO  lO  lOO  IO 

0.27 

o 

CO 

o 

CD 

CO 

d 

i 03 

! o 

1 

rH  03 

rH  03 

d d 

3.91 

o 

d 

0.55 

0.66 

0.37 

! LC  co  ! co 

1 03  rH  1 CO 

! o d i co 

O ! © CO  ! 1ft  O ! rH  lOfr  1 rH 

N ICOOO  INN  j rH  1 CO  CO  . j CO 

© lOO  lOO  i © lOO  IO 

0.41 

1 

l co 

! o 

i 

N © 

© d 

0.76 

i 

CO  03  00 

Ttl  t-  CO 

odd 

iss§  is 

I d d id 

03  1 r+i  rH  ilOH  1 -H 

03  1 03  rH  l CO  CO  l 03 

d i d d i o d i o 

i CO  Oi  I CO 
l CO  rH  i Tfri 

l O O 1 O 

O ! 03 

CO  i Oi 

d i d 

i 

i Oi 

1 

1 o 

<$  M 

o d 

0.20 

eg 

d 

H ION 

CO  H O 

dod 

jss  is 

1 d d id 

s iss  jfes  | 

d i d d i o d i 

j rh  00  1 

idd  id 

03  1 03 

rH  l 03 

o | d 

guar  an  ieeu_ 

found 

guaranteed- 

found 

founds 

guaranteed  _ 

guaranteed- 

found 

guaranteed. 

guaranteed. 

found 

guaranteed. 

found 

found 

found 

guaranteed- 

! -3 

; e 
; 3 
> c 

guaranteed- 

found 

found 

guaranteed- 

found 

guaranteed. 

found 

guaranteed- 

found 

found 

guaranteed. 

found  

found 

guaranteed. 

guaranteed. 

found 

found 

guaranteed- 

found 

guaranteed  . 

found 

guaranteed- 

found.  

Scottsburg  

Westport  

Scottsburg  

' c 
!tc 

| : 
| ^ 

Royal  Center 

Royal  Center  

j7 

■ e 

«P 

= 5 

3 < 

S3  e 

40 

t 

3 

B 

East  Germantown 

New  Albany 

Rising  Sun  — _ 

1 'i 

N 

Si 

iviaiAiaiiu  

Rising  Sun 

Rising  Sun  

Crothersville  

Morris  

Ferdinand  

Rising  Sun  — 

Osgood  

Rising  Sun 

o aoyei  

Haubstadt  _ . 

Jonesboro  . 

Haubstadt  

i i 
i i 
i i 

i i 
i i 
i i 
i i 

i i 
i i 

! >> 

! ° 

Henryville  .. 

7848 

7597 

7847 

:s  is 

l 00  l CO 

1 JN  It- 

7365 

6828 

7979 

6957 

7246 

7761 

7306 

7765 

7351 

7760 

7843 

7770 

7659 

7757 

7305 

7758 

7701 

7541 

7884 

7540 

! Lg 

7232 

■ LO  LO  03  03  03 

:C*  Oi  o o o 
-co  cc  i> 


CO  CO 

S3 


lOOOOOfMOKM^-^' 

)05050j050l050l0i0i050i00! 
IilOLOLOlOlOlOlOLDLOLOLOCOCOCOCOCOCOC 


COCOOJOiHH 

oo  oo  oo  oo  os  a> 

^^COCOCOCOCOCO 


£ 

3 

bo 

'H 

"s-l 

,Q 

£ 

cd 

u 


>> 

o 

cW 


0 g 

. cb 
O'-’ 

ss 

O o 

Sh  Sr 


'd  t) 

OJ  0) 
to  CO 


3 3 
P4  Ph 


o 

o 


,C  s- 

« TT 

| O 

s° 

c 

c 


Sr  4) 
<D  X!  S-l 


g 

o 

"3  -3  te  33 

>.  > .a  £ .2 

o ; sn 

r®o5o 
t-s  ftO  SO 
• O • Lu  • 

> w .£3  . 

Jllp 

.Si  a * o * 

M O O 

'go  o 

5 

o 


r 


6o 


o ^ 

•;uao  J8d 
‘l^^oj. 

•;U0D  J8d 

p,^ 

‘aiqniosui 

gtf 

ft  'o 

•;uao  aad 

ft  C3 

‘P0^J0A0J 

pu'e  aiqnios 

•1U80  J0d  UI 

©iqnios  ‘o5a:  ‘qsB^oj; 

•;u0o  a0d 

•;u0D  J8d 
‘8AI^0'B  pur;  8iqn 
-IOS  J0}13A1  I'BJOJ, 

<D 

•;u0D  a0d  ‘oiu^S 
-jo  oiqniosui 

0AI13BUI 

1 bfl 
! O 
t- 

•;u0o  j©d  ‘oiu^S 
-jo  oiqnfosui 

JOJ'BAl.  8AI}0y 

‘1U80  J8d 

‘oiubSjo 

©iqnios  J8i*B M 

•;u00  J0d  ‘s^x^s 
tEXirOUIUIB  puu  S0XBJX 
-i'u  ui  axqnjos  J951?a\ 

•ON  PPHIO 


i>  on  © co 
cii^dd 

NCOINN 


o 05 


o^o^oo 

NNOHOO 


OCOCNOOO 


O CO  O H 1 

cd  00  oc  © ■ 


OWfOOOOlOTHOtOOOlOlOtOlfJinHI 

HOOHWNNHOOOHCOHHHfiNi 


OWNOi 
CO  CO  CO  O' 


lOOOOtOOO^OcOh 
i c io  w in  id  irj  lo  io  d u: 


1 O ft  O T-H 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

1 O O LO  CNI 
i on  on  h ^ 

i 

i 

1 

lOhhOOHO 

1 CO  KM  CM  rH  r-H  r-l  O 

1 

1 

- 

i i i i i ! i 

i i i i i i i 
i i i i i i i 
i i i i i i i 
i i i i i i i 

CDOIOOOOOW^OO  W J>Nt>OlOOh- 

HHOHOHHIM  doMMHHN<- 

OCOHNCOHOOQO 

onondododr-Jd 

^lococci>j>oooooo 

ddddddddo 

io 

o 

J>- 

d 

oo 

00 

d 

00 

on 

T* 

d 

on  i on 

CO  1 rH 

on  i t-1 

co 

rH 

05  1 HH  CO 

O l LO  CO 

on  i d d 

LO  co  o 

HH  CO  CO 

odd 

ft  CO  1 J>  H © h- 

i ^i  iji  ft  in  m 

ft  ft  i ft  c>  ft  d d 

LO 

(M 

d 

CO 

d 

on 

CO 

d 

s 

d 

00 

on 

d 

88  j§8 

ft  ! d 

CO 

CO 

d 

rH  ICON 

LO  1 rH  On 

d i d d 

0.45 

0.34 

0.50 

ON  I CO  CO  05  CO 

HH  1 on  on  rH  on  on 

o o i d d d d d 

00 

d 

to 

LQ 

o 

on 

d 

o 

co 

d 

LO  j CO 

on  i d 

co 

CO 

d 

• 

lo  i on  ai 

05  1 On  rH 

rH  1 O O 

0.19 

0.30 

0.16 

co  on  i 05  05  05  i> 

rH  On  IHHHHH 

od  ! d d o d o 

0 

01 

d 

to 

o 

d 

CO 

CO 

d 

co 

on 

d 

i 

i 

i 

00  1 co 

T-I  I CO 

d i d 

on 

o 

d 

CO  l CO  rH 

O 1 O O 

d ! d d 

0.26 

0.15 

0.01 

rH  1 05  O HH  CO  O 

on  on  i h on  co  on  hi 
d d i o d d d d 

<M 

o 

d 

CO 

d 

Oi 

o 

d 

T— 1 

d 

1 ^ 

O l ^ 

d j o 

s 

d 

00  I 05  CO 

O 1 on  rH 

d i d d 

1 rH  CO 

1 On  rH 

i d d 

0.09 

0.08 

0.08 

0.13 

■s  !*s  i's  i'g  i i i*g  \i  \i  N 

a?  a?  O a?  a)  a;  a>  a>  a; 

-M  4J  ^ 4^  4J  4ft»  4-5  l-M  j ft-» 

didldid!  Cidididid 

-a  |t3  ! lx!  ! | Its 

© © © © 

« !®  i !®  ! ! !® 

0 ! ft  I ! ft  ! ! 1 ft 

a? 

a> 

a 

I'S  ! i ! i 

!|  1 ! ! 1 

i TO  l i i l 

• n i i i i 

bX)«4H  bXl'+H  tuD'f-i 


^3^2353 
^0=30^0  = 0 

tUO M— I bfi'4-l  tUO'W  fcUDM— I 


gagftftgftftft 


p 2 d 


LL 

C V 

X 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

i i 

i i 
i 

1 

• 1 

1 

! 

1 1 
l 1 

'© 

1 1 

1 1 

| M 1 

I ft  i 

1 ft  © 1 

1 

1 

1 1 1 

; 1 i ; i 

: ! ' ! 1 

*. 

o 

E 

d 

o 

ft 

1 1 

1 1 

i 3 

i d 

| <o 

J >» 

i © 

!’> 
i >» 

j o 

i > 

! >» 

!® 

! 

1 

1 

! i 
i 

[ i 

1 03 

1 1 

1 1 

! O 

is 

! >> 
io 

is  § 

Hft  bD 

© i-i 

I2S.O 

®sg 
:o  «s 

1 'ft 
! ft 

' 03 

I ® ro 
'3  ft 

\&£ 

:|-o 

i-g  o2  © ft 

° 

a 

il 

! S 

! ?. 

f-4 

d 

O 
! O 

1 o 

l-ft 
' ft 

o 

1 bJO 

! ft 

jj-j 

ft-9 
! © x 

i-M 

i w ft  o 

1 ~ 

o 

1 S'0 

i O Fh 

i?5®--§io 

+J 

o 

<u 

o 

c3 

W 

1 Ph 

•o 

o 

!W 

'S 

i ® 

!m 

l Fh 

1 pq 

! c3 

'0 

I © 

«M 

1 w 

■o 

l Fh 

'Ph 

i © 

i Fh  © 

'PhiH 

i 03  © O 

'WMO 

1 o 
' O 

i Fh  © 

'MPh 

H,a  '°N  U0U09dsui 

1 LO 

I CO 

1 rH 

I O 

l 05 

1 CO 

1 rH 

1 -Hi 

l CO 

1 LO 

1 rH  O 

1 00  CO  rH 

l CO 

i lo  on 

1 rH  LO  CO  On  rH 

i co  05  on  oo  lo 

1 CO  1>  05  05  o 

V) 

Ift 

l CO 

i on 

1 ^ 

1 00 

:s 

1 05 

1 rH 

1 LO 

i co 

1 o 

l O 

I CO 

1 Hh 

1 00 

i CO 

1 CO 

1 rH  LO 

i oo  on 

IIO  H H 

1 05  O CO 

l 00 

1 C5  CO 

l co  co 

c 

1 1> 

i x> 

i r- 

i 

1 I> 

l JN- 

l 1> 

l co 

1 1> 

1 co  X— 

1 CO  J>*  i>- 

1 x> 

i J>*  x> 

, co  co  co  co  x> 

iOHHCOCOCOCOlOlO(M(MOJOiOi(M(M(N(M 


P 'O  - - /.  X 

) <X)  CO  CO  CO  CO  CO 


rHrHrHrHrHHiiOLOCOCO< 


_ . _ . lO  LO  CO  CO  CO  05  05  05  05  05  05 
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOJ^J^JOX^J^JC^ 
cococococococor-i>i^t^i>x> 
^cocdco^o^o^oocooco^oco 


o 

Q. 

D 

DC 


a 

e 

| 

a 

°33 


* ft 

5 ® 
© © 

® «D 

I® 

6 s~ 


00  » 
© © 
a a 
g a 

c n 
-d“ 
c 


a ,3 

® . 
-£  03 


. ® 

>>X3 


2 -ft 
cg  Ph  ® 
£3 

3 3 o3 

tc°^ 
Q ft 


s- 

o 

cog 


2o£ 
h_  ft 
r*«J 


C 3 « 
CQii  S 

3 .2  <J  •; 
=8.®  3 

m a 

m hBH-t 
©<! 


r-l  O O I O 

3 O ® O i O 

„ 3 >? ® >• 

* ft  2*  ^ S'  O 2* 

sg  3*3,33 

ft^^  wOQ^GQ 
© g © 
S £3 

E^rK  S^l 
Fh  Fh 
CJ  ft 


® C3, 

cl  3 's: 

~ ® 

ft  _ 

a*  § 
m 


sS-sifl 

© 

ft 

OQ 


2^ 


.a  ® 

-ft  2 

oP 

ft 

® _ O 

t-®SQ 
ftco  w 

d rrt  <x> 

W c3  C3 

.S-8W 

SJh 

-So 


« 


Ssl-gg 

ft  « a 

pq  fl”wpq 

5^3  § .ft 

§w-3o§ 

— =3  * ft 

03  O 03 

O 3 O 


.2 

’3 

S: 
2 
<1 

+a  ' ' pM 

© 03  £ 03 

wffl  .pq 

ft+^pH+> 
ft  ® 


OCX) 
Oh^ 

■3§s 

co  cl  fn  g 

© 03  > 03 


JS? 

rC  CD 

® © 

Cl-Oft 

OOO 

PQ«  £ 

"!«! 
2 Fh  ° 
£ SCO 


5 H 

00*5 


<£> 


§“« 
o 2 ©FQ  w 

Cl  ^ o Fh 
ft  CG 


03  os 


03  C3 


EoS  >22 
< . a ■ 


*“3  3 P 


0-gf^g 
< 3^S 

o o o 


a )rjw 

ISd 


^ (5  W n ^ 

«SdswSs*?l«* 

. a P a 


W gb 


: gWowWfe 

ft  * * * * * 


6 


>n  co  in  in  co  in  o 

© © © © o © © 


oo  03  o © o oo  oo 


rtf  ^ lO 

O © O O 


inosioo 

OHHH 
© © © © 


g CO  CO  g j 
© O O O l 


a i i i i 
C3  *0  T3  T3  T3 

% a p p a « h 
S333S“S 
?oooo?o 

tlX)  «+H  «+-(  «4H  «+-(  0JQ4-< 


lOOiOM 


O^INCOlOOlOHONOH  O (N  O c 

HHHHWNMCOHHrHH  N W IN’ 


OOOOOOOr— I* 


iO  CO  l>  CO  tH 
© © © t-H  t-H  © © 


I Tfl  | < 

t <N  I i 


O O O O I O rH  1 


rHlflOO  I CO  CO  CO  111 , 

S H (NCO  l CO  C<1  ilOrtiCO  i 03  CO  J>- 

OOOO  lOOO  lOOO  lOOO 


! C<J  tJH  J>»  I l 
1 03  CO  !>  > - 


S8S  . 

© © © lOOO  lOOO 


£8  !' 


OOOO  I O O O lOOO 


i CO  co  co 
IWNO 

! © © © 


03  rH  00  03  I rf  CO  ^ 

OOOO  I O o o 


I TjH  X>  LO 
lOOO 


CCT3 


PI 

0 03  03  03 
^ C C fi 

0 p 3 0 

3°°° 


i'S  ir 


rj  l jh  | j | j j | | a | ; ; pj 

0 03  0 03  03  03  03  0 03  03  03  0 03  03  03  0 03  03  03  P 05  P 'O  P 03 

PftPftpPpgBftftgftSftSSgSSggggg 


P £ P 


a i pi 

0 03  P 03 
Si  rj  >1  C 

cs  P 0 K 
P O P o 
ban  sudm— i 


~ o 


S P W 
O ,2  <72  p 
■hT)  i Q 

I -a  pi  ^ aa 

i a <u  PS  o3 

'PQMOt-s 


! O 
I ft 
!S4 
o 

o 

'« 


fl  j 
feu  is  ' bo 
Sh  o *-• 

'g  to  I ,§ 

o$X  IS 

'OOh  ' o 

<15  O 1 O 
WOQO  'M2 


OflflS 
£ o p£ 

cc  P3  ^ 

3 <3  o 

q>pqS 


bo^g  bo 

SS  3 


bo 

: _ i si 

2 p 

I g pj-ft 
co  « co  I 2 o ■» 
+l5-P  I rft  2 a 

•pf  -P  I W H H 

° o ° Is 

&£&  !5>w 


! 2 ^ o 

! 02  — I 

i-gog 

l S=j^s 

I S3  a>  P3 
'030 


S ' > 


03  co 
O c*s 


P S3 
Q o 

M 


O S I 

> p .S 

t>  bo  +->  rt 

0 M2  a> 

0 Q cq 

S 6 6 

o <2  o o 


S3  ’q.'BJ  >P 
o S'  o o 

^ £ t-  ^ 

P 0 p P 
Ph  M2  Ph  CM 


/ / 

eo®So<6© 


OOOO 
OOOO 
CO  co  co  co 


>> 

rk  ^ ^ 2 

c rn  ro 


P S3  O 0 -B2  co 
0 bl?  P .03  g B3 

P ^ 5 S3  o EH  -2 

wP  “j  M2  p W w ^ 

QJ  S3  * ‘0  ^ .5  ** 
PI  O . 0.  .s<  . 

•3*  * * 2* 

o ^ 


fe  ° 

^iw 

-5 

C3 

ft  a> 

0 T3 

§0  '<<  ■ • o o 
(2^0  0 0 PiZ<  0O 

uC>o«oo3rHor(fi,o  m 

br!2  2 5roC)s’cS«!>>£“ 

.si!P§-S  gas  8s^fl^ 


.-s  3 


pi  * ^ 

o o -S  S3 
io  ^ ft+o 


^o-s5 

« M2  R ^ • 
C . M2  . . • 


s 3 a) 

■^6  « 

S ft 

°40 

JhS 


j — < CO  —<  0 


S4M2 


m 03  _ - _ 

^080  «0  C3  “0U5J  ,-  . 

co  ’So  So 

.9  o * o'15*  ^ * - * 

'g.w  w 

o 


O « W qn 

'O  ^ Dd  co  ^ «. 
© 0 K-  0 « 


03  * S3  ' 


phsWi-s^FM^ 

> * P * 

0 0 

pH  h b 


ko  ftO^I  g”  « 53 

^<i5o^S^  o^.l^ 

* g*  o o*  -o 
h M W h 


ft 

ens 

8aS£E 

sgMSs 

|0=8Wg 

+o  co  ft  co  W 
Jh  ft  ft  ft 

0^  O 
W S3  £ S3  2 

a)  3 P 

gw  W 


U <D  02 
bo  bo 
_2  0 0 
u ft  ft 
0 
03 


0 CD 
<D  <V 

to  to 


PH 

P P 
Poo 


ft  ft 


03  03 
1 P P 


S^S-5 


V.  O rH 

ft  03 

“ © x'  X 0 

0-wOO  — 
S3  -p  ^ Si  03 

c ft  ft  C 
p ft  ft  o 

.5  p 0 o 
•"01  w 

g5  p p P 

>>>00° 

(B  irj  o O 03 

S lg  « P « 

ftg  P P 0 
ft  P ft  ftg 

gp  S S ^ 
0 0 0 0,0 
M2  M2  M2  M2  Ph 


TABLE  VI. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Fertilizers  Collected  in  1917  (continued) 


62 


o 

'So 


o2 

d o 

Plh  d 


jad 


•}U99  J9d 

‘aiqniosui 


*}U90  aad 
‘pa^aaAaa 
puB  aiqnjos 


•}U93  J9d  ‘J9}BAV  Ut 

9iqnios  ‘OsH  ‘qsB^oj 


nu9D  J9d 


crooo 

I (M  ***  CO 


l“? 


O ^ Oi  O |>  00 
HCCHOO 


OOWOC5 

H^OCO|> 


OtOOOOLClO 

t>  06  so  06  o o 


in  in  so  in  oo 
d o o © © 


OC5C5CICOO 

HOONNH 


OOOrHOOOO0QOONOC5O<NOI 

o6ooo5005codddooociooi>io©W' 


COOiOOWOJ 

doddd 


0005  00  00ClHC000|>(M(N00O00 
dddddHHHHHHdrid 


1 n so  o o 
1 d o rd  co 


IC^OOOOOOCi^r-.-rhlCLO 

iHododddddd 


*}U0O  J0CI 
*9Al)0(B  pU'B  ©iqn 
-[os  jojbai  pejoj, 


*}U0O  J0d  ‘011113S 
-jo  aiqniosui 

J0}T3A\.  OAIJO'BUI 


CO  03 

d d 


1 CO  LO  | J>-  l>- 
1 ^ CO  I -T  T- 

1 d d 1 d d 


1 in 

I ^ Tt< 

1 d d 


CO  CO 
T*  CO 

d d 


10  oq 

d d 


I 00  T* 
I ^ 

! d o 


; toS 

! o d 


CO  1 IN  CO 
CO  I LC  CO 

o 1 d d 


co  so 

CM  rH 

d d 


(M  CO 

d d 


•)U0o  j0d  ‘oiu'bS 

-jo  0iqnfogui 

JO^'BAi  0Ai;oy 


d d 


co  <N 

1 o o 


CO  so 

d d 


*;u0O  jad 
‘diubSjo 
aiqnios 


1 o o 

! o d 


O <N 

d o 


d d 


•?U0O  jad  ‘s;xbs 

muouiuiu  pus  sa^Bjq 
-xu  ui  ajqnfos  J0}b 


co  CO 

d d 


I o © 

1 d d 


m co 

d o 


a ; i a : 

e3  d ^3  d d 

2 d a 2 d 


d 

d d 

d § 

d o 
be  =2 


d 
a> 
s 
+s 

I id  I M I I M 

dd  cod  add  ad 


id  id  id  id  i i 
d d d d d d d d d d 
d^dbd'nd^dd 


W — W W -w  W W -w  W *3  ' W 53  .0  ^1  UJ  ...  w --  w --  w --  s_*  w 

d^dd^ddbd^dd^d^dd^d^djnd^dd 

?o?,oo?„o?„o?o?oo 

*■“-  •-  • ■ bO'w  bO'W't-i 


d2d32d32d2dd2d 

odoo^oo^odoo^o 

IH  tuOq-i  *4—i  bcdl  IH  fail <4—1  bO"S«M  bO't-i  be* 


d 

d t3 

dg 
S o 
bo4q 


d £ 

Q3  .3 

OM 


1 33 
I d 
I d 

1-9  x 

I d ft 
1 3 W 
d 


& 
n £ 

s° 

c/2  O 
d £ 

•-sW 


jo  " 

3 be 

> d 

*2 

o-S 

O 03 


d 

2d 

d v 

pqp* 


ag  *(>n  uotjogdsui 


•ON  HJPI3JO 


I lO  i 


I lO  50 
I 03  00 
I 50 


CM  CM 


C5  Cb  05  o o 


I <N  <N  09  00  00  00  J 
!05OOoOO< 
IOLOIDLGLOLOGOOOOOC 

cococococococococo- 


IIOIOCO^OCOOCOCOCOOCOOCOCO^O^O 


I’d 

is 

c rt 

-s* 

s 

a 


o 

o . 

o L ft 

ego  go 


S ftd 
S3  •«£ 

^ or2|J-1 
d 5 i~h 1 
PqO  ^ 


d^  o 

•Id© 

O O d 
"02 
a .g 

dM§ 

d 


^3  be  o bfl 

.S  « t*».9  rt  .S  03 

n O)  S ^ • CD 

JS  lfeS-w.3  o§ 


•3  2^'|d|ss 

n ^ <02  ^ rn  o 

o3  ^ c3  ^ 

■c£-g  2^ 

o o « ^ 

« o Q ^3 

Oi>  df«  g 

O * d 

O « 


« 


.d  03 


Or5  #■ 

ft  1 


sh  d d m 

SS«H 

• -a  • 


be 

®.s  ® 

tH  — < -M 

|S1 


d a 
.2  0 
T3 
d 


:qs 


d n*  . 

+j  i3 , 

dPn' 


ft2 

“ d 
®5d 
33  +3 

o d 


x 


d o O 

>!s2 

H dO 

* * —j 

o o 

O 02 


a 03 

'ttC  -* 
in  lo 
50  50 


od  n 

o«a 


U oi^  to 

d33 

3 ^4->  O 

,«  g2  2 

§sal 


d.s*y  5 

d d 3 

fc.9« 

■So 

a 


buffalo  Crop  Grower  1 6550 


OlOONO 


© © © r-  o 
06  oo  o o o 


00OOLOO 


l <N  (N 

I © o 


i'O 


a ! a 

^ *3  cR  *3  XR 

2 A (h  a b 

3 o 3 O O 
bfl<H  Sse<w<3 


£u 

.SS 

'S  3 
(h  oj 

« a 
ccce 


C O 
RO» 
O “>  3 
Bn  Suo 


°3 


O CO 

l>  d 


o co  05  o co  oo  oo  n;  a co 
wdiNHoddddo 


OCOO^ONL^IMHHHOO 
HHHOrl  O O O O O O rH  rH 


OCOlf50HHN05WW 

cdcocdioioioickoicio 


o^o^oao^coco^oin 

odooT^r^ddodooddcodai 


o oo  oo  oo  < 


O (M 

cd  ro 


00  05  00 

odd 


tH  03 

d d 


<N  03 

d d 


ic  © 

d o 


00  00 
d d 


2 2 

s o 

60  «w 


*^3  'O  ^3  ^ 

R>lRRRaCfl 
3^333333 

ogoooooo 


3 

^ TJ  c3rOpO 

flMfliH3tj3Q 

3O33C33C333 

o^o^o^oo 

bX)in  tuoiS  fcjQ«4H  4h 


lOOHNOJOOOO^TH 

NHHHHHHHNtO 


lOO-^OOOOOOOOCO^i 

iddddddaodi^oioioi' 


! ® c 


CO  05 

d d 


COI>00  0005 
HHOHHO 


1 l>-  CO  J>- 

1 d o d 


lOfNW 
l ^ 03  rH 

! o o d 


1 O (M  H 

! d d d 


I 00  IO  rH 
1 N H H 

1 d d o 


rOpC 

a a 
s 0 
o o 


3 o 

buoXR 


3 i 3 . . 

3 ^3  3 '"O  'O  *3 

a h 3 3 3 b 


CO  t~  00  00 


3)  3)  33  Xl'd'd'ti 

>-,2MM>-i-2>-i333b333 

3233323333S333 


tuo 


3"333  3niyyy~^ 
O 3 OOO  30000  So 

fcC«M  H <M  =*H  tuO<fH 


3 <o 
« J2 

C.—H 

02  Hi 


cu  o ►*  SJ 
e3  -H+J.-3  03 

■3  § SO  g 

” “ ° p,  «3 
3 3 O 03 


£BSOcj 
ffl  ®2  ^4J 


coco-^^ow 

-H  N H CO  N N 
CD  O NOCOCO 


w 


3 3 o g 
03  OX2  2 
o t-  rH  W 


E 


00  I IO  CO  CO  05 
CO  1 HHOCO 
•“  • CO  J>-  ^ 10 

CD  CO  JC'-  i>» 


rH 

o 
3^ 
O a> 
a,  ■£  be 
C!  6C® 


be  fl  3 P 
Boss 
■sw  > 

l|S| 


: 3 bo 

< cx  & 

!a>« 


J ID  IO  IO  LO  IO  IO 

t-j^r^ooooopagaoooao 

")  CO  CO  CO  co  co 


CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  c 


OOCOCOHHHHHHfHH 
Ol  <M  C-l  'M  Cl  (M  O O O O O H H 
OOOOOOCKMCKNWCKM 

cococococococococococococo 


1 05  05  05  05  LO  LO  LO  LO  LO  CO  CO  CO  CO 
HHHH-H-HH'H'H050505C5 
l GO  OO  00  00  HHHHH(N(M(N(N 
iLOIOLOIOCCCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO 


W o >,W 


ep  pq 


!°g 

jSg. 

|®C5 
sE  3 

?Q  3 1 

* *H  I 
!«0 
S <u 

o 


Sn-gw  g2ws  g 
h fe  o^M®  -2pq 

swofv^» 

” p « 3 Sdto 

CQ  t-r  -§  cc  O Ph  >-s  *-s  S 


„ o 
3 2 
.20 
H 

2 3)“ 
O 3 

a a 


V o 


3 3 
H o 


b*0 


J-g 

►5  2 


3 

tfl 

o 

3! 

Ph 

'Sss 

>6t“B 


3® 

. 03  O 

i ® c 

i^O  g 


P.-3  kj  Ph  2 
0h^o,0  "g" 

Q_.®b  ■ o.  . pH  v 


af 

a <0  ^ 


w r*5  - ^ 

*3  > w 9 <!  ^ ,h  ’ 

«m(>  jk!  CQ  t-o  Ph 


^2 

SS 

o 

oH 


aj 


Pi 

a 

° 'gS1-1 

O |0®  <0 

■3  2 

u 


; "o  a 

Spq 


w -J  3 3 

S 30  o 

u O » 

c cq  2 cu  . 

iB-d^  3^ 

°§R|>- 
S 8*  .* 
20  <3 


>> 

S ® 3 ® , , 

sziz?*  1 J 

B'Ow}hw«Ph<U 

.5  ,‘S  . .S3  .XR 
3 £ 


-.2  o 


3 0 

So 

So 

s> 

be  oj 


5--2S& 

cc3  ^ 
-3  §3  -3  H 
3 q,  3 

3o«iC 

° !tS 


tf  U 
CB 


03  Ph 


$1 
be  2 ' 

<D  Q)  ■ 
QJ  W 


O r-. 


WM  <D 

TO  ^ . 

<D  3 . 

Tg  a 

h o o 


<D  3 3 

a-3  x; 

i?  o o 
H u s- 
rt  33 
03  Ph  Ph 


&5S 

w rtffl 

<u  3 . 

JJ  o J1 

o 3 
_ 0 -3 
•S^O 

'S  s | 
► 2 2 
<15  ^ ^ 

® 'O  T3 

^ g 2 

<u  3 3 

02 


>. 

<D  Cd 

ft 

00 

CO  o (1) 

kJ  <D 

<u  ^ w 
s 

™ 0)  rrt 
^XR  r-.  3 
m PO  3 

J «WH 
2 H <D 

^02  <u  (3 
w bfl 

. • S 3 . • 

CD 

o Td  w o 

H (DVH 
Ifl 

<D  cd  "d  ^ 
c ft 

feat 


TABLE  VI. — Report  of^  I nspection  of  Fertilizers  Collected  in  1917  (continued) 


64 


•5U9D 


53  T3 

5 a 
S 3 
3 o 


0000330303 
bflii  tn4o  bfl' 


®c 

0^ 

5 

■1 

3* 

•}uao  aad 
‘aiqniosui 

OOSlONffiMO^OMOtqOlO 

HHHINHNH^HHOOOHH 

1.0 

1.8 

0 co  00  O CO  1 

HOOHO  1 

LO  CM  LO  03 

OHOH 

43  ’c 

•^uao  aad 

C 

cflOlOHOONONONOH 

® j i 

ONOOl> 

1 

1 

O CO  O LO 

‘pa^aaAaa 

C5000050050HCOCOCOCOOO 

HH  iO  II 

J>  d i>  06  06 

1 

CO  CM  CO 

pu-B  aiqnios 

rH  HH 

rH  rH 

rH  rH 

l l l 

1 

1 

1 rH 

}U9D  J8d  ‘jai'BAV  ut 

OOOOHM  1 1 C 

l 

1 O rH 

l 

1 

1 

00  O 

O 05 

O 05  O O O 

1 

1 

O to 

eiqnios  ‘osN  ‘qs^^o<i 

HHHHH  l 1 CO  CO 
l l 
) l 

jtHiH 

1 

l 

1 

d d 

1 O 

HOHCOM 

1 

1 

1 

03 

1 *— 

•^uao  jad 

co  co  ro  co  Ttn-oo  o 

1 LO  CO  00  rH 

1 

| 

O CO  1C  03  CO  00 

1 00  |>  05  00  i>  rH  t- 

03 

1 

HHHHrHOHOOH 

rH  O O 

1 

l 

1 

(NCUOCOr 

1 O O O O O <M  03 

O O 

•juao  aad 

1 1 

LO  OS  H Ci  O)  l rH 

rH 

O 1 00 

1 

1 

l 

l rH 

co 

> 1 

H 

1 0; 

> 1 CO  CO  l CO 

1 

1 T— 

r- 

‘9AJPB  pU'B  8iqn 

J>  00  Oi  00  0^  1 !>• 

rH  1 rH 

l 

1 

1 03 

cc 

1 1 

l 05  |>  l rH  CC  1 rH 

1 IT, 
1 

03 

-10s  aa^-BAA  IBJOJ, 

00000  1 0 

1 

0 

rH  1 O 

1 

1 

l rH 

1 

rH 

1 

do  loo  Id 

1 r- 
l 

d 

'A 

•^uao  aad  ‘oiubS 

1 

10H05HH  1 O 

CO 

1 

O ! CN 

l 

1 

1 

1 CO 

05 

1 1 HN  1 LO 

! 0: 

) 

co 

-jo  ajqniosui 

LO  CO  -T  1 (N 

<N 

rH  1 Oq 

1 

1 

l CO 

LO 

00  CO  1 <N  03  1 03 

• 1- 
1 

i 

<D 

ja^BAi  9AIP13UI 

OOOOO  1 O 

1 

O 

O l d 

1 

1 

1 rH 

0 d 1 d d id 

1 T- 
1 

1 

d 

O 

•;uao  aad  ‘oiubS 

CO  03  rH  <>q  fM  I ® 

CO 

00  j co 

1 

1 

1 

1 m 

CO 

CO 

• 05  1 IO  t>  1 J>> 

1 

1 rf 

C5 

-ao  aiqniosui 

CO  CO  <N  <NJ  <N  1 

rH 

1 

* j> 

CO 

10  LO  1 rH  rH  1 rH 

l H 

1 

6 

£ 

ja^BAA.  aAi^oy 

00000  10 

1 

O 

d 1 d 

l 

1 

! 0 

1 

CO 

do  1 d d 1 d 

1 r- 

1 

d 

•^uao  aad 

l 

OOCJOOHlfl  1 — H 

l 

rH  | i-H 

1 

1 

1 

! O 

CO 

• 03  i CO  LO  1 

1 

1 

-H 

‘diubSjo 

<N  Ol  rH  lO  rH  » CO 

O 

1 

CO  • 01 

1 

l rH 

00 

<N 

r- 

i 1 O O l O 

1 

O 

aiqnios  aa4BA\ 

doooo  10 

1 

O 

d 1 d 

1 

1 

! d 

1 

c 

00  100  10 

1 

1 

d 

•^uaa  aad  ‘s^bs 

l 

rH  00  0 CO  oq  1 00 

.r- 

00  j rH 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

oc 

1 00  IlflH  |H 

1 

1 b 

Hi 

BIUOUIUIB  PUB  Sa^BJI 

H(NH  rH  CO  lO 

O 

00  1 rH 

1 

1 

1 0 

to 

0 

* c 

5 1 CM  rH  1 03 

l C 

> 

r“J 

-X 

a ui  ajqnjos  aa^B^\ 

OOOOO  10 

1 

d 

d 1 d 

1 

1 

1 d 

0 

00  1 0 0 1 0 

i C 

1 

> 

d 

'C 

I i i i i id  j'g  j 

•o 

i'g  i 

*g 

"O  | <z 

! 

1 r 

1 

I •a  ! I'd  j 

•c 

1 'O 

•c 

i l 

Q. 

! ! ! ! I !®  Is  1 

S 

1 ® 1 

CD 

£ Is 

I ^ 

1 ® 1 !jj  1 

0 

I 2> 

0 i 

a 

i ! 1 1 J ! a la 

a 

1 a 1 

a 

a 1 a 

: 

I a 

1 a 1 I a 1 

a 

1 a 

1 

a 

i 1 

aa  ’on  uoi^oadsui 


•ON  I^PIHO 


S 

2 -a 


S w 

O 01 

® x 


O 0- 

Sa 


xoiaooH 

N ® 03  nN  N 


03  TO 

£3  a 

a J3 

3 O 

ii=n 


03  •O 

3-1  a 
a 3 
3 O 


.T3  «33 
1 a 
! 3 


£3  3 a 


H a R 2 W O 

rj  a 3 a o o 

o 3 o 3 o o 

l“-J  tUO'W  bflMH  «t-l 


a-o 
£3  a 

a o 
3 o 

tU)<4H 


o a T3  a'O  a^3  a'o 
3£3rt£33£3«£3a 
33333333a 
o 3 O 3 O 3 o 3 O 


> 
a 

— 3!  <V  ~ O 

£ "s  >>  o j° 
3 43  ,ra  O ® 

•s  bis 

a 3 a m « 
HP3  JOi-3 


• 05  rH  LO  LO 
Q(N  HCO 

• co  rH  jo  oo 
CO  JO  O jo 


> 
! p 
' o 


c3  c3 

a a 

a a 

® a; 
a>  a> 

Sh  Sh 

OO 


si 

Sw 


05  05  05  05  05  < 


'Ti  CiQ  C:  ~ ~ 


_ _ _ . .,  icocoacicio 

rHrHrHLOLOLQLOLOLOlOLC) 


•-2 

3S 

a 

0 43 
’3  43 
.2  5s 
Oo 
„a 
>>2 
aO 

a« 

® 

r* 

la 


©•g.3 

o C 

il9* 

QJ  “ 


2* 


ft  3 

m«2 
m >>  O 

^ <0  43  dg 

313*  « 

o 

>>  . a ffl 
g^'S  a 

OJ  . O a> 

HEngW 

2* 

< 


a a 
43  o 
. ftcc 
4^  tc  +s 

a g S0*3  2 

aa^g 

giU-css 

**~|  L_J  P O Eej 

si** 


„ a 
3 2 

a 


ife: 

a>  eS  .44  . 

.S2^KC5  go 

fn  5,4 
qS 

o £ 


ft  a>  . 
>» 

r-2-3^ 

C2  9*ro 

a 0-2 

Jo* 

2d*i 

to 


a o 
opq 


a 

o 2 o a 
oiH  o o 
cogajsc! 


a & 

o o 

fti  *■< 

Ho 

a a 
- 1 


l£ 

qSS'g 
.^So 
2 3 aW 


.•43  O a 
H •"  ►a  ‘3 


gS 

oPh 


ajaw  ® 

.•a  go  .a  -t3 

a g a a 

43  -g  4=43 

o 3 o o 

|-»  > *-s  >-a 


TO 

sh  a « 

w\j  ^ • c3  nn  °o  O 

.o-Swr® 


go  ?M 


0 

o PM,® 
« o o 

o,g  ^ 

5 a <u  ag 

P43  +30® 

fMa.3  a 

a G . ft  S^-UJ^  H 

.S  O &u  ® P • C 

go^-goos 

« 2^*«  sd  “c 
w S*  3 2 

m O OO 

O ^ Hj  Hs 

a 

o 

•“9 


.2 

6^ 

;sos£ 
a a 
o o 

l-S  >-9 


^.=S'§0  9g«=H«  = ~§ 
Sse’SS5i^&|Sc“oS|§|ag|S's 
wSt?  ^‘is  ^ 

3*  * 3»  >*  * o > * .s  2 2** 

cs  03  2 -C  O>oc3  » 

->  hS  lT  ft , ft-!  -rri  M t*i 


'^§ 
I js  w '=5 

.o  0 0.0®  s rt  O fl 
Cl  bo  5 ,2  S M'-1  3 bo  c3 

2 =3  o®3  «og 

: (1,  lc  ,cj  ffl  p*q  . 

5 . .bo  ...  <73 


.H.3  o5ou 
3 B O go  53  .£| 
u ® 5 


5£a 


:utilated  tags  attached. 


TABLE  VI. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Fertilizers  Collected  in  1917  (continued) 


66 


o B 

- 

§2 

fL,  cS 


•}uaa  aad 


•^uao  aad 
•aiqniosui 


•}uao  aad 
‘pa^jaAaj 
puB  aiqniog 


•}uao  jad  ‘aa}BAi  ut 
eiqnios  ‘ozll  ‘qs^Ocj 


O CO 
03  03 


OH|> 

l>t> 


L0C0t00000t0tf5C00005OL0r^»n>C0t0tOrHC0tOrH00C010Ot0C0t0t0L0 

OOOOOOOOOOrHOOOOOOrHOOOOOOrHOOrHOO 


lOOJCOOCOCOOOCDHOWOCOOOlNNOMOShOOOOlOOOO 

i(M(N«NHH(NOH(MOHOOOOOOOJHOOOO{>OOo6wN(Mcio6ci 


OOaOCOOHOOO^OOJh 
03  *"•  H H O HHHH03H03H  *— 


OOiOJOOr-ONOJOo 

HOOHCOOHHOCO*- 


•}uaa  aad 

Tb*o,l 


ooouoi>o 
o ri  o co  n! 


(NC5.,^-'#irsot^'<nio^i©'#<r>5Dco^coMHm?0'<^ooooco^oO'^o 

OOOOOHOOOOOOOOtHr-U—  OOOOOOOiHOOO 


•}uao  aad 
‘aAi^o'B  pil'd  aiqn 
-los  aa^BAi.  idjox 


•juaa  aad  ‘otudS 
-ao  ajqni’osui 
aa^dM  aAi;adui 


05  1 T*  00 

1 CO  IO 

d 1 d d 

d 

! r-  05 

1 10  to 

1 d d 

co  CO  CO  O 
<M  CO  rH  Cvl  03 

d d d d d 

co 

CO 

d 

03  rH 

CO  03 

d d 

558 

rH  O 

0.28 

0.30 

0.19 

0.48 

rH  tO 
/>  rH 

d 0 

0 

03 

0 

rH  1 CO  03 

rH  1 CO  <N 

d 1 d d 

CO 

1 CO  rH 
l CO  rH 

1 d d 

rH  CO  ^ O CO 

03  CO  03  03  03 

doddo 

oq 

d 

co  r- 

03  CO 

d d 

rH  rH 

1C  rH 

d d 

03  O H 

03  CO  03 

odd 

03 

CO 

d 

05  to 

co  co 

d d 

CO 

d 

^ ! CO  J>- 

iH  1 OQ  rH 

d loo 

CO 

d 

1 rH 

1 rH  O 

! d d 

^ O 03  CO  rH 
H03HOH 

0 d d d d 

co 

d 

rH  CO 

O O 

co  to 

rH  CO 

O O 

d S98 

rH  O O 

d d 0 

rH 

O 

00 

d d 

d 1 

hH  1 05  CO 

CO  1 0 0 

d f d d 

d 

1 rH  rH 

1 O CO 

1 d d 

rH  00  05  CO  rf< 
OOOOO 

d d d d d 

rH 

O 

d 

1 

CO  1 

0 1 
d 1 

1 

03  rH 
rH  O 

d d 

03  CO  H 
OOO 

odd 

CO 

O 

d 

CO  rH 

0 0 

d d 

8 

c 

1 oq  LO 

0 1 CO  CO 

0 1 d d 

0 

d 

l 05  rH 

1 CO  C<1 

1 d d 

rH  -H  03  ^ CO 
rH  CO  03  rH  O 

d 0 d d 0 

co 

d 

03  O 

d d 

03 

d d 

to  rH  0 

rH  03  rH 

odd 

00 

03 

d 

O rH 
to  03 

d d 

O 

c 

•}uaa  aad  ‘otudS 

-ao  aiqn{osui 
aa^dM.  aAi^oy 


•}uao  aad 
‘otUdSao 
aiqnios  aagdA\ 


•^uaa  aad  ‘s^bs 
btuouiuib  puB  sa^ua^ 
-lu  ui  ajqrqos  Ja;BA\ 


aa  *on  iionoadsui 


•on  Idioi^o 


-5 


Sa 

2S 


* a a 

S 3 3 

?oo 

fcUDM-t  =w 


S3  T3 

a % a 

P 2 3 

o Po 

■h  bO't-i 


3323333323233233233323353 

O0?O0000E0?0°3003000?o30 

bfl«H  <4-1  "4H  q-l  «M  bfl«LH  6fl«M  <)-l  &JD ^— ( ( bl) ^-1  14-1  t(-i  &D M— I &C '4— I < 


<D  O 

a3 
3 3 

Hi  ft 


3 3 
,0,0 
S a 

3 3 

O O 

DO 


33^ 

|i!°S 

3 O O a>  3 

QQOBO 


I C§  i co  <N  <?3  ( 

1 CD  CO  1 


£“° 
3 
3 03 


! 410  w 
! » 2 
SI 
ill 

'.co  D 


ISS 

I J>-  JL— 


CO 

,0 

Pi 

„ a 

S3  <D  OS 

Q Eh  Q 


gO’ 


LOOOJ 
CO  rH  05 
X>  05  05 
CO  CO 


' 2 

rO 

ss 

I p ft 

!q^ 


i 03  05 

> 52  JO 

1 1>  j>- 


i 

-H  -H  -rH  < 
CO  CO  CO  ■ 


iCO^^NNNOOOOOQOOOOOOOJOlOOOCOCOCOlClOWlOOO 

IHGCOOOOOOQOOOODOOOOOOOO^^IOIOLOOOOOOOOCOCO 

>COO5C5O5O5O5O5O5O5O5O5O5O3O3O3O3O3rHrHrHrHH'rHrHJ^Jt^00C0000000 

I^IOIOIOIO^IOIOIOIOIOIOOCD^OOCOCOCOOOOCD^DCDCOCOCOCOCDO 


3 


0.0. 

a a 

o o 

oo 


90 


•a* 


03  ^ 
n a _ 
S’?  ^ £h 


R Ug  w 

S'Sn 

M 


0.^1 

a. 2 

o « . 

n « K 3 M 

'H  O.  O L3  05 

.H  2 ^ d 

« § £ ft’s 
tj  r:  ^ p ft 

Ph5 


OOQ 

2 OJ-G'Ti  03 

3 &*>*  * 

t>  S3  c3 

W 


+?  S3^ 

S § 

03  Q 

Ah 

W 

bJO  fl 

o 03 

, o£ 

:Q 
.t»  -S 


1 p*-h  03 

S o 0.  0 3p  to 

■m  o 33  g M o a 


3 — 

&-§ 

K>  W 

^ O.- 

. CO  1 


W W 


§ So  s§33 

2^  n o,d  ^ Or°  g3 

a jj 2 a^  paofi<»« 

S >»  2 § S Q . P 83 

< O bfiH1  3 S s ^ 6 

cu  3 03  03  3;  fn  . S 

sa<i^wM^wo.ao 

bfi  tuo*  ^ 

o3  c3  Lh 

K ' O 


O T3  CQ 

■sS« 


Oms 

~Ma 


o 

33 

Ah 

_ > 
33  u 
03  S3 

tf  CC 

03 

o=8 

o 

as 

a* 


bn* 

S3 

w 


« O 

^ S 

o h 

hO 

o 


cs  >H 


&H 


t-.  rl 

“ „’S)  g I 

2 a 03  . ® 

. hO  3^ 

* bcw  be 

S3  S3 


O 

Lh 

o 

O U h m 

•S  30  P 

0 X3  O 


bg  S’O 
SSsoc 
x<  oS 

3 

O 

•-S 


6 7 


o oo  to  CO 

©o'  o i — i 


OOOOffihO 

■ '-®sfS83S 


N (N  (N  tC  I 


O Ci  CO  C<J  O <M 


3 O CO  Hh  iO  t-H 
^ H H O O <N 


p |>  ^ O O co 

<5  05  O O <N  *— 


I O J>  rj 

I rjn  O tO 


OlfJOOW 
J>  00  CO  O 00 


O 03  iO  O O O 05 


CMO^O^CO^HOOCOOOON 

(NO^Ot-HOOOrHC^OOOC^O 


OOOOOOhWWOWIMNOt 

HCodoOHHHHC'lfCCOCOHf 


o o o to 


O CO 
to  03 


kO  kO 

dodo 


I O rH  Q-j 

MNMN 

odd 


NWCO 

odd 


g co  co 

odd 


odd 


LO  go  lo  o 

to  hh  ^ 


O^OOh^aOOOOlOCO.K-^NCOOCOCON^OCOCDCOOT 

tocoNrHciwHodddddddoooHOOHHOHi 


O CO  00  CO  CO  rH  CO 
HHHHHOO 


^ O g 
i 03  03  03 


o i>  io  co 

kO  I>  i>  CL> 

d d d d 


O CO  T-H  rH 

d d o o 


ko  d 03 

03  O O O 

d d d d 


! i 


coo  I kO  kO  CO  i LO  00  l CO  i O i O kr^  kO  jt'jNO 

! rH  oi  ! odd  loo  |d  id  iddoo  ihhh 


I rH  $i.Sq  i 03  co  jo;  jo  j CO  TJJ  Ift  ^ j O kO  kO 

loo  'odd  loo  id  io  ioooo  1000 


l CO  |> 

i d d 


IS 


03  CO  CO  CO  ikOkC^ 

d d d o i o o o 


kO  o 

i o d 


WOH 

I 03  rH  o 

i d d d 


03  CO  rH  03  I kO  CD  kQ 

i d d o o i o o o 


i oo  ^ 
1 ® r"? 
i d d 


S I 


a 

cSddd  c3d 
^ a a a jh  g 
03  o o 3 S o 
2 o o o 33  o 


'g 

© 

a 

03  'A  'A  T3 

®33P 

? o o o 


co  ioooo 

O O O O l O o rH 

d d o d i o o o 


W,  | 


: d d d d cd  d d d d c3  d d d c3  d d c3  d c3  d 03  d d d d C3  "d  Hd  "3  ^3 

siaggggagsggsgggagggggggi§iigs§g§§ 

go  g,£3  °£  &£  S =2°  §,£££  £<2=2  £<2  £.2  £<2  <2  <2  <2  £<2<2<2£<2 


1 O 04J 

Sd  ^ 
:>><2 

! © ^ * 
•GO  WPh 


l 00  CO  OJ 
■ 1 r.  : : 
ikfl  kOJ> 
It*-  Jt>  J> 


c3  c3 
r*5  ^ 
C3  c3 

^ss 

o« 

wii 


ig^Sg 

j-S  g A .2 

i s p,®1? 

! ^ 3>g  © 


to  in  its  < 


• 00  Cl  CO 
) Ol  IO  CO 
> l>  t-  J> 


-S  > 

io 


fl  > a 
3 a+? 
©O'® 

n o £ 

OPP£ 


! °4* 

i © a 
! 2 ° 
.2  A 
i m 3 
'CPQ 


em  ® 

w 2 A 2 
a ,3  > § 
«d9S 

^.3  O rj 
h'OOd 

OWCP02 


00  CO  J 
1 CO  kO  1 


£ 

£h  Ph  qj 

PQOco 


03  03  03  03 


A O O 

goo 

a i X3  g1  g> 

2 °| 

^Ph  Ph 
S'S^H  . . 
•i-  .S3  d w % 
d o o o 

SESmS 

S.oSgg 


3 

O 

^CP 
H ft 

~ c3 

?npc 


u2§£ 
3 © S & 


3 

A 

co 

O 

33 

Pp 

2 

’© 

<1 

-a 

© 

3 a 


^■HSU 

|-waSfe 


3 m hi 

o I a i 

OS^ 

cc  on  be 

■?pp  s 


§ 

■mhP  oW 

® PP  co 


6 cO 


2 CP  3 


CO 

3 

O 

m 

“=8 

o 


3 ' © 

2 «3 


© o.2 
;3  2 * 


^Sw-g'  'M>§  - „ . c 
29®Sg4»«|gS5&  s 

j’^  i°^bcw^o&otHH6o0-"' 

^ ©35.2>^r  -rj  . 

wd^^w^WEH'-grigN^olwi^rt 

'++  .5?  .$**  A A* 

02  02  C C 


o 2 © 

*h  2 t> 

CP 


•a  ^=8  g 2 33  (S, 


5 CUJ  oil  ttkJ wj.  oju  yi 

»3|m5wSw-n<iri 


g 3^3 

bode  5>0W  02  32  ^ ,2>  2 W ^ &<>2 

g .fflS 

gow' 


j^gsl 


-—  . '3 .2  uj  2 03 . 
BTo^hWO'S 
© * * * © 
a a 

02  02 


CP 


o '•>  « 
© * © • 
A A 
02  02 


Ph  CP 


^31 

Q) 
£ rO 


r 0) 

1" 

3 


o o 1 
33  2 


^ 02  02  02  • 

ffiH 

o&g^° 

g S a;  2 S § 
£<g 

^33  -0  >d 
d a>  0 <v  <d  <d 

<D  U1  <D  U2  m U1 

w c3  «2  c3  c3  c3 
3 ^d  ^33  A 33 
33  O O O O 

U h Si  Ch  Vh 

!h  3 3 3 3 

3 Ph  CP  Ph  CP 
CP 


M ^ 


©Td 


^ © 
® pi 

Ph  ” 


£© 
.2  bD 

A-S 


fc  be  ^ « 
^ 3 £ P 
O A O O 


N N N 

S|hh 

Jh  ’2  ^ ^ 

CD  S <D  <D 

be  -3  bX)  bJO 

P3  <w  C3 


Q.  i Q.  Qj 

02  _g  02  02 


A rrH 

©02  <5 

•Sfe:^ 


© 

> o 

g <£  -d 

<p  d ,2  1 
^ a)  0 
w o 

® 2 
ftH  — 

s! 

mS 


s I s s © 

p S ? P 60 


TABLE  VI. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Fertilizers  Collected  in  1917  (continued) 


68 


II 

1 .2  i* 

il 

1 1 d (L 

!|  gj 

•JU99  J9d 

•XU90  J9d 
•9iqniosui 

Ido 

‘XU90  J9d 

‘P9XJ9A9J 

PUB  9iqnios 

•}U90  J9d  UI 

aiqnios  ‘osX  ‘qs-exod 


OQI> 

OO-'W 

in  co  ro 


© © 
IN  00 


© oo  © © © in 


in  in  © © 


© 05 
IN  IN 


© © 
© © 


©©©5>©©©©©©'dH©©rH©©©©rnOin©LO 

t^i^o6cdoo’o6©©-^©©©ini>in<Ncoo6o6i»odo6o(> 


© 00  © T-l 
r-HO  IN  IN 


© © ■ 
CO  CO  • 


i in  © | j 

i © © 


•}U90  jgd 

TBJO.L 


•}U90  J9d 
‘gAi^OB  pire  9iqn 
-los  J9}T3Ai. 


00©00©lN- 
© © © rH  r-i  i 


© rH  IN  ^31  00  CO  00  t— I CO  rH  © © 00 
HHHOOOOriorilNNOO1 


© © I © © 


}U99  J9d  ‘OIU-BS 

-ao  gjqniosui 

J9}T3AY  9AI}93UI 


•}U99  J9d  ‘OIUUS 

-jo  giqrqosui 
jgjBAi  9Ai;oy 


•}U90  J9d 

‘orueSao 
giqnios  jgj'B  m 


© CO 
1—1 

© © ‘ 


© © 
I © © 


•^U99  J9d  ‘S^X^S 
BIUOUIUITjpUB  S9XBJX 

-in  ui  gxqnjos  J9^a\ 


© © 
© © 


03  •O'O 

% a d 
5 3 2 
goo 

bD*W  >M 


S 3 
3 o 
bn«M 


d 

03  13 

b 3 
S 3 
3 o 
be  1-1 


a i 

03  13 

£ Cl 
c3  3 

S® 


M I M I IM  I I i—i  . 

c3  73  g3  'O  ^ 03  'O  T3  KS  '73 

■i-"'33^33^3353 


gs3«S33g33g3323 

^o^oo^oo-ioo^o 

fan — i bfl>M  «-<  bfl«t-i  bn ci— i 4—i  bfm-i 


bn^H  bo<w 


d 

03  13 

£ d 
3 2' 
3 o 
bc<n 


\>J& 

i O 


« iO 


§ I 


I <D  03 

■P3PQ 


cS’V 
a a 
a ci 


2H  -ojs[  uoi;o0dsui 


•ON  mojBO 


i <M  O 

i ^ 

i o co 
I CO  CO 


CO  CO 
Ol  CM 
CO  CO 


CO  CO 

r-  j^ 
IO  lO 


cocococococococococococococdcococo 


ft  c 

V 

© ^ 


b 0) 

S ft 

5£ 


n d-y  d 
o c fl  ^ 

•T»  S Orl 


1 ©*  . , 3;  o 


5 “ 


c/2  PM 

03 


2 «Q  ' 


5 5S 


i QJ  Qj 

£|Ph^  = 


■Hft  > 

**3 

a?d  o3 
o d > 
M d H 


I I 

8 

ots  - 

M 3 © t> 

0>  5 Q.t> 

’3  0 1 S' 
d -O.Q 
J©  o 
!*§ 
i1© 


d<  tj  S 

c S g 

oSo- 

M^g 


d +- 

O 03 


bn  o, 
^■2*  , 
® |S' 

g o<1 

■SO 


tn  fg  Si 
PH 


iM-g 


Fh  §.2  i 

r§  mg  : 

C3  ! 


:& 

| 02  o 


dO. 


iq-I 


i n 

! a'  H 
• £S 

jS-o 

C3 

Nl 

I dO 


69 


H H N (M 


OIOOICOOOHWOOOC  COt^OCOHH  H 
HNnHHHHNHNHOxCiHHHNN 


lO  N OIQIO 
H oi  (N  H O 


O CO  00 

oq  co  d 


I CO  © CO  CO  > 


O Cl  10  O CO 

d w n o 


O O O rH  O , 
(NNHHHi 


©©C<JCOt*1>00©t-I< 


co  i>  ^ co  imo 


^ LQ  LO 
© © © 


ICNOCO 

to  d co*  co 


OOOtH  CO  © 


^ j>«  no 

odd 


I CO  CO  CO  05 

i o d d d 


© ^ 
<n  co 

d d 


oo  co 
^ co 

d d 


! rH  I N O lO 

i co  i oq  <m  co 
id  i d d d 


I rH  (N 
I O O O 


CS1  J^LOgg 

o i o d d d 


i 00  © 
I rH  O 

i d d 


co  & 

d d 


IS8  l! 


i O CM 

! d o 


o o 

d d 


© o o 
i o d d 


© ^ © © 
o o o o 

©odd 


c3  T3  c3  ^ c3  T3  c3  70  c3  73  c3  73  73  73  'O 

-2babgbPiP!PibP!bBbBBc3B 


B 

K'O'O 

^ a a 

P O O 

bfl«W  C4— I 


05 


a 

c3  73  c3 

b b b a 
§ g q g 

bO-j-i  tuO  =*—( 


a 

a t3 

b a 

S p 

s o 

bflq-i 


c3  -^3  B B -O  B -q 

^q^q^qinq 

Sqcarjqrjqr-j 
fcuo <4—i  bom  bfitt-i  bfl=w 


eS  -q  -q  03  -q 
b B B b 1=1 
^33^3 
5,P.P  ? o 


1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1^3 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 
• 1 

1 

1 

1 0 

II 

j r © 

] © ] 9 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

! S?  i i j 

! c3 
'.2 
!£ 

1 4-> 

1 05 
' >> 

! * 

! o3 

\& 

1 cd 

1 =3  1 >• 

1 > | g 

1 s 

0 bo 

1 ° I q 

> >> 

1 QP 

fl 

Ph 

! P 1 j 

^ ' ' 

c/2  >r> 

1 a d ! 2 

! j S 

!£ 

•hJ 

!ffl  !PP 

»« 

!0§  !pq 

1 © 

is 

1 CO 

1 oq 

1 rfl 

1 in 
;$ 

:s  1 0 

1 CO  l 00 

1 © 

1 00 

1^©  1 JHJ 

1 x>  1 00 

1 

ll> 

1 © 

1 Jb-  1 1> 

1 © 

iOJ>  1 © 

I ^ IH 

!S  Jn  >>c3~ 


! « o 

03  -M 
ri  W 

! S « 

I 03^ 
(3  03 

:£o 


I © J>  ^ (M 
l UO  CO  © © 
l CO  Cl  00 
i © © i> 


I lO  CM 

I © 

; £2  go 

I J^«  J> 


'©©©©©©©©CO 


cq  03  oq 

© © © 
co  co  CO 


© © 
no  in 
© © 


©©©©i>I>©© 

(MWHHHHHH 

oqoq©LOnonoiOno 

cocococococococo 


a l a> 
PH  03 


® w 

«2  co  — 
^ g g by 

« blip:  B 

® S q ^ q S 

at!lSs= 


-2  bfl  ' O 
c3  p q Q 

f°!ggg 

|Sg=g5 

oaS.3fcgSs]U 

73  ® °X3Q  . PP 

-H  „ 

3.2  a oO  _ . >,3*  ©mO  ..qq,,, 

3 §£&’£  S3°^ffl£  fc  o’S  ®0  I 


fl 

03 

a 

a ® 

si 


w ® ,2  ^ 


^ h3  .2  S o & t>  hj 

; © © 03  o 3 

? Pc  K Ph  <J  Ph 


° a 

siSS-Sh* 

o * * 


3 

*h 

4H 

U2 

h-  /'d 

g-s  § 

Is”  I 

© MP3P3 
hs  . . 
m B i-si-s 

i|* 

03 

Ph 


>»« 
M q 


© O 

3o 

|Sb|b 

oS-SSg 

h-3  >q  <H  <D  «H 

q — ® O « 

© os  9 cq  9 
M aO^O 

o B q 

o 'S  a b a 

® ^-S  . 1-3 

<*53* 

3 

a> 


H QJ 
^2 


a o 

o b 

°fS 

g_.  © 

q 'O  r— I 
P q 3 

1=1  a ® 

o3  q Ph 


is 
? 

5 


-Sag 

30  9 
02  o. a 
« 

^9 -S; 

flSo 


3.2 


i-i  q 

O <a^  ® 

fl’S|1|nC3 

03^-Ph 


03  ^ 


-g  0«2 
•So« 

. rK  r, 

■ .a  ® S3  8h 
os s a 

pi  n S,  ^ q 2 S • 

Suo  . 

« os  w a « s * 2 a 

o ei  ci  >3  a Z+  a ^ a ^ 

'm  'w  * 
c3  03 

K K 


© 

c3 

33 

ft 

ui 

O 

Ph  v 
T3  « 


tuo  m 
B os  mS^Z- 

a a.aw.aH. 

?*?  .S  w * oj  * 

H O ^ 

•a  .s« 

co  fB 
03 
« 


02  b 


glgh 

O r 2 ■'-<03 

os  -q  a .Jo  e '3  fit 
.a  ® jg  g 3 H . 

ggi 

sec  o 2 c 

fii'S®  . 3 -M  03 

2|.a.aw^.aw 

S .3  n w M * 

' bjO^  ^ 03 

.a  q « « 

co  >r 

03  P* 

» 


Sample  received  in  the  spring  8i  Purchased  from  W.  T.  McCray 

Purchased  from  Samuel  Leer  82  Returned  to  Mfr.  Refund.  Sample  to  Mfr.  (see  page  30) 


TABLE  VI. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Fertilisers  Collected  in  1917  (continued) 


70 


.2  * 
S° 

oS 

43  0 
ft  s3 

■}uao  J9d 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

i ! ! j i I | j j j | ; j j ',  I ! j ! j ! j ! ! It-Jco  ! 

! ! i ! i ! ! ! ill! ! ! ! 1 ! ! 1 ! 1 ! ! : ! ,-^4 

1 1 i 

| 1 i 

•}U90  J9d 

•oiqniosuj 

Lot-iooc-unmoinomt-oo  l6^  ! ^ 1 S 1 1 i 

^ ^ ^ ° J ^ j 9 { j J j 

CO  LO  1 

o o o | 

•}U90  J9d 
‘popoAoa 

|S|2222wSS25d2  dddddddddddd®  J 

O rH 

(M  C<3 

1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 ! ' loOlHOMOHOOW® 

iii 

•ju9D  J9d  ‘J91BM.  ui 

©iqnios  ‘os2I  ‘qsB}o<l 

iii!:  j 1 lij  |nhNncohhhhhh 

Nitrogen,  N 

•}U90  J9d 
‘I'B^OJ, 

I 

dftftdr^ftdftdftod  hhhhohhhhohohnn 

! j j| 

*}U90  a9d 

‘9AIPB  puB  9iqn 
-JOS  J9}BAV  IB^OJj 

1 

is  io  is  iSoooo  jss  jS  |®  |“ 

Idftdldlftldjd  ,ooo  IOO  ;rH  ,o  ;e  j ^ 

! 1 : 

•}U99  a9d  ‘oiubS 

-ao  9iqniosui 

J9}BAV  9AI}0BUI 

! 

isgs  is  is  is  is  isss  iSS  :ss  |S  is  is 

lo  oo  is  IS  IS  jo  ,ooo;oo,o.o;o.- 

i i 

•}U90  J9d  ‘OIUBS 

-jo  oiqniosui 

J9^BA4.  9Ai;0Y 

j 

|®m®  \oo  ;rH  | a jfc  m ! so  m IS 

iddd  Id  Id  Id  Id  !ddd  | d d Jo  j©  ]©  | <=> 

1 j 

•}U90  J9d 

‘oiubSjo 
oiqnios  JOtBAV 

! 

i i^s  i^  id  is  \zs  |8  i"  is  || 

j.  j 

■}U9D  J9d  ‘S^BS 

BIUOUIUIB  pUB  S9pJ? 

-iii  ui  ajqnjos  J9^A\ 

1 

isss  is  is  is  i | ;§ss  ;ss  i”  \s.  i*  !| 

Iddd  Id  Id  Id  1 ] 1©©©  1©©  [rH  ]©  1©  |© 

j j 

1 

4-> 

■8  | | I'S  il  i'S  i|  i Iii  'll  i ||  ||  jl  il  |l  I 1 

1 S il  i-g  :l  i si  s ia  is  is  I«  Jl  JJ„ 

as  T3 
t!  ft 
ft  o 


03  "O  'O  03  "O  “ 'y  J*  a £ ft 

sllsSsSfiSs  SS 


_ _ ^ W'UV 

ftftBftftftftftftSfteftSftgee 

gj°«2°  S°«2  S>«8  So° 


bu  bJD^  ig  | <u 
3 3>  ! > |S 


aa  'ON  uoipodsui 


•on  repijJO 


I >4  i®«S  i © ! IS  I ft 
; o { § § m ! to  ! o 1 X2 

l2  :£££  !*  18  !£ 

ipq  'CDCDW  'W  'W  '> 


O 2 


!§nw  ; pqp-i 


!i  igSg  iS  il  II  II 


|io!! 

1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 

1 ! ° ] j 

i i ig 

1 l-s  ig 

e cs  ^ 

, i o 

w i § g 

s ,h  s 

S o ;§ 

« { o I ft 
'03  *W  'co 

*2  1 fH  ft 
Fh  j ft  > 
o O 

a '^o 

6959 

7404 

7773 

7354 

6747 

7360 

^cocqc 552^^^^ry)G0( 


00  00  00  ( 

> CO  CO  CD  < 


ii§§!!lllliil!llll 


© o 


£ dO 

SSqf 

si?  3 


I® 

ft  s- 


© © 

a ft 


KO.es 

^ a ^ 

^d.e  o 

Sf°S 

p,  £ _r 

| 

X3  0*2 

kps  s 


-ft  {'ft 

o I a 

o I S3 
Oh  ! ^ 


M p,  1 F-<  00  i©Qj©F'  1 

D wyg^li  ©-g 

. ol  rr*  "H  r-r'l  rvi  _D  <o 


m t>  I ^ O «o  O 

'qo^o 


■alfi'sSflggwiH-SS® 


5.H-  ■B«H|hL  - -5  '^STgoS 
fto*42^>t-.c300Kj^t;ii'Tfo  .Sf  r5  ^3  o 

|S|§BOod^.«««tSt 

ft  L ft  M © ra  MwaiM^aifiMS 

a^rt^.ss.ss 

^ £ im  * m * oa* 

03 


£ 00 


?.  « 


60  .O. 


* J3S 

.S3  S3 


IS"-2"*  sfilsSs  *S** 


sft-Irs^M*  5?  **  2* 


03  03 


03 


g^^gd  §'» 

«9£3§ 

■§5* 


'dS- 


ftftd; 


O 03 


7 1 


1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 I 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

I f I 1 I 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 l 

1 1 1 

1 l 1 

1 l l 

l l 1 

l 1 l 

1 ( l 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

21.5 

22.6 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 

Of0^^l>C0  1 N 50  I500010G5 

r-IOOOOi-H  ii-HO  iOOOO 

1 

T*  1 CO 

O l O 
l 

1 

1 1 

toco  0 O O 03  CO  1 1 

OH  rH  C<!  tH  rH  INI 

CO  | tO  O O O CO  tO  03  "H*  O O rH  03  O tO  tO 

tH  iHHHHH^OOHMfOHOlHfO 
l 

OC500CD^0^05000CO(M050HOlOO^tO  OHOOlO  l OHOtCO00OinO(M05OH*-»-OO’t 

OOOOOOOOOOi^lOLOLOCOLOOOaiOOCiC^CO^  ^J^HOOCOOO  1 ]g2SSSSS2S^nSrH!2^2*0inCi 

1 1 i 1 j 1 1 1 j O 10  05  (N 

1 11  1 1 1 1 1 1 CO  CM  CO  <M  CO 

1 LO  00 

1 d d 

1 l l 

l 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 I 1 

1 l 1 

0003  1 10  co  0 in  0 cm  1 

CO  T*  CO  ! 1 ^ CO  to  CO  03  T—  1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 O O rH  03  O CO  O 

l H O H H H H 03 

1 

1 

OOHHOJOOOOOOO^OCOOOOinOOO^lOO  1 

T-HrHrHrHOrHOOOOOOOO<N  O r-t  O O O 1 

1 

00  ««■  0 in  0 Tin  co  ri<  10  <o  | 

odd  co-^oooodo  i 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 1 CO  H<  tO  Hi  CO  O O 

lOOOOHHH 

l 

• 

1 1 l 

1 LO  1C  00  r—  TH  1 00  N iCJOONN 

l LO  LO  IO  CO  CO  I ^ CO  1 (N  (N  CO  <N 

1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 O IOOOO 

1 1 1 

‘0 

03 

to 

d 

1 

CO  ^ l 

03  03  1 

d d 1 

1 

1 0 0 

1 03 

1 d d 

1 

go 

0 

03 

1 

J>-  l HI 

Hi  1 CO 

d ! d 

1 

03  1 

CO  l 

d ! 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0.26 

0.39 

0.19 

1.30 

1.60 

1 1 1 
iIOIOt^COCO  1 03  CO  1 rH  03  CO  co 
wco  1 CO  ^ l CO  CO  04  CO 

lodddo  idd  idddd 

1 1 1 

CO 

d 

00 

Tt< 

d 

co  ! 

03  co  1 

d 0 1 

1 

1 

1 rH  t-H 

1 rH  rH 

1 d d 

1 

S 

co  ! co 

d ! d 

GO  1 

03  1 

d ! 

1 

1 

1 

1 

! ! H<  HO  loo 

1 1 rH  r-H  03  1 CO  CO 

1 1 d d d ! d d 

iNCOHWO  ICO  r- 1 1 00  LO  J>-  O 

1 Tji  CO  <M  CO  l CO  (M  l rl  <M  (M  <N 

idodod  idd  idddd 

1 1 1 

co 

CO 

d 

0 

CO 

d 

10  00  1 

d d 1 

1 

! O rH 

! d d 

1 

s 

03 

j>  ! 00 

0 1 0 

d 1 d 

1 

GO  ! 

0 1 
d 1 

1 

1 

0.09 

0.07 

0.06 

6.42 

0.27 

0.04 
0.07 
0.2  7 
0.10 
0.01 

0.08 

0.12 

0.07 

0.01 

0.06 

a> 

OJ 

d 

to 

d 

1 1 

00  1 1 

0 » 1 

0 ! ! 

1 1 

1 

1 03  rH 

1 03  O 

1 d d 

1 

d 

1 

0 1 0 

co  1 01 

0 1 d 

1 

0 1 

d i 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

I j | s s 1 0 

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 
111  1 

jggggg  jss  jssss 

idodod  100  idooo 

1 1 1 

03 

d 

0 

d 

1 1 

IS  i 

1 d 

1 1 rH 

1 1 CO 

1 1 O 

1 1 

O 

O 

s js 

d 1 d 

1 

0 1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

l 1 X^-  GO  rH  i HtO 

1 1 rH  03  rH  1 00  03 

1 1 d d d 1 d rH 

mtced_ 

nteed_ 

nteed. 

nteed. 

nteed. 

nteed. 

mteed  _ 

'O  ! i 'O  1 T3  ! 73  | TJ  ! T5 

0 , 0 0)  9,0,9 

<0  | , ^ I _2  1 ^ I £ 

oj  ! ! a ! a ! a ! a ! a 

1 

1 

1 

i’g  i i i's  i i 
!©!!!«!! 

! a ! ! Is  ! ! 

G3  T3  "C  T3 'O  T3  ca 'O 'O  o3  xJ  T3 'O  T3  'fl  ca 'O  sa  T3 'Q  S3  'O  o3  'fl  'fl  «J  'fl  o3  'fl 

pflflaflapflflpfldflflpdpflpafl  p a p g g 

flflflflflflflflfl^flflflfl^fl^fl^flfl  s 3 cs  3 ^ fl  3 ca  ^ 

gooooogoogoooogogogoo  g O g O O g O g O 

SjO <w  «m  q-i  «t-i  <m  bO'M  <m  bo «w  <w  «w  <*h  61>h  bOHH  60<m«(-i  bO'w  6u0«+— i «w  bO«w  bO«i-i 


p a p a 3 

fl  fl  fl  fl 

— - PS  . “■ 

b0«< 


BHddWRqnpflR 
dPdPflflflflflgflflflgflfl 

floflofl°°ooflooofloo 

QjQ  -j__i  hnej_i  hr  Cl— 1 u_j  ej 1 


a CO  O 00  H 

0 to  CO  |H  0 

IO00  l CO  CO  03  rH  IH  ICO  l 05  rH 

1 C5  H 1 03  03  rft  H 1 03  1 O IHC5 

1 J>  1 05  00 

1 co  1 00  r- 

IS 

1 00 

1 00 

!8 

0 00  rH  to  GO 
OONNJN 

1 tON  iNhCOH  1 J>-  l H 1 LO  tO 
|JC^X>  l CO  X>  !>■  *>  ICO  It-  it-t- 

l 00  1 co  0 

1 CO  l co  t- 

I co 

l CO 

1 co 

iS 

lo  r-  to ' 
lOlOH' 
03  03  LO  J 

x>  J>  i>  1 


l<M<N<M<Mba<MbacaC$<MC;3<N<M<M<M<M03feai 

'OCO^O^OCOOO^O^OCOCDCO^OCOOCOCDCDO 


O O O O o 

IO  IO  LO 

oo(mc<i<m 

CO  CO  Tt<  'll 


£S  in  00  3 o 0 JS--  

'*i'Hi'ti'*''*'tiinincO<0<0<0<OCOCO<OCO 


<M  <M  <M 

S3  S3  S3  53  ®g  eg  eg 


<u 

zl, 

2 <n 

rg  c3 

« S 


?g! 

’ p o ' 

2*P 
:0  . 


53  s fe 

^§■2^5 


X3  °«-g  O 

^W^Hi 


12  2 
S 5 

•gft 

« • a o'd  ^ ^ F 
O [>  fl  £.  fl  i d! 

ft  .S  «& 
’HCh^OSc!Ki 


1 00  T 
!s3 

iSpgN 

S-Sll 

j pq  >>W  § 

i a®*" 


02 


' 2 tn  CO 

P "5  O O 

<U  di  p p 

flfl  22  ca  CQ 

ft) 


> ft 

rj  co 
M 2 

s3  x: 

£Pn 

pi? 

ft  fl  I-,’  I 

S'fl  a ' 

o f3  'S  5 


® p fl 
*3  3 p 

— h rt 

ftp  " 


C . a> 

£WW 

ft*  * 

do 


;H  bn's 
; . s p 

S3 


1^11 


c3  bp 

-fl' 


S'  <S  O r*  jj 

&W  BO-t-S 

02  p 02  p 

0 ” a » . x: 

x: -a  ffi  c3  !-s  O 

PD  S3*  c3*  * 
02  <u 

'fl  P5  W 

S3 

01 

M 


s»  .2 

§rt  fl' 

a 5w 
§**: 
°§w 

»Sc 

S3  •<  fcj 
CO  fl  _ 

X3  'O 
Ph  -p  g 
"O  § K 

C3  s 

02  fl 
Q3 


o 

^Pn 

fl'C? 
o <11 

x3-£  a 
p-s  5. 
|§H 

“1* 

§ fl 

*-srrO 

c3  * 


°3 

CO  00  o 
« dX3* 

S|«-s 

.sgs.° 

SOS’S® 
A -P  — 

4f<  ft  S3  QJ 

3 3 '3 

®X3  0s3 

'a  Ph  9 O 

c3  * 


fl  6 
|o 


« P3  <t) 


P- 
(M 

©3  J p^. 

0 o £ 6 

45  J3fi=;<j£^0-2HW°3  002 

.©.S So  . — 2 d 10 "fl r-3  p ^ ^ 

.'ddfl^fl^OdflO{-)p 
o o S3  co  fl  SdSfl«  « 

— * * n-1  * * 72 

s § 3 


13 
- a 

d c o 

MO 


a>  bn 
bfl  c3 
a p, 
ft 


( u M 


^ <0 


<B  0) 

ftS 
S > 

^ r/i 


P5 


J J 1 j 1 
! 1 ! ! 

! g i ! ! 
;.o  ! 1 j 

43  i 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 1 • l 

» 1 i i j 

i 1 i 

! 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

! G 

' l 1 

III 

! bo 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 

1 

1 1 

■ 1 

2 1 

2 1 

■ III) 

1 1 1 1 1 

III' 

1 1 1 1 1 



■ Ill 

I 1 I ! o) 

1 ' 1 1 
Nil 

< 1 1 
! 1 1 

1 1 

1 > 

1 1 

1 1 

J si  i-P 

! ® 

1 1 

1 0 

1 -u 

l 

O 

' fl 

1 1 

1 1 

1 M 

1 ! S m 

'j 

|m  1 p ® 
i M .2  2 r 

1 C 0 

C X2  .g  CG  C 
1 ft  3 fn  2 fl 

!’> 

; 

’ 1 > ~ 

i : [rs> 

! G g g 

! ioo'flfl 
! ;2So2 

1 1 

i* 

0 

1 0 

| bo 
, fl 

i'i 

1 0 

1 ° 

| Q}  Jfl 

! Jfl 

1 > t« 

l-fl  S 

02  S3 

1 fl  > 

X2 

1 bo 
| fl 

i 

ipg 
is| 
i a 0 

' fl 
! © 
i fl 

1 p 

1 02 

1 1 

1 5h 

‘ r2 

! fl. 

2 1 

1 ^ 

1 fl 

|i 

! c3 

I fl 

1 H> 

1 ' ' 2,"> 

; fl  fl  ■’g  a 
< 02  02  > .fl 
X3X3X3t^ 

02  02  CO  P 

I O O fl  j3 

1 1 tuoffl 

j*|s 

Sica 

Waldron 

Bedford 

'QQPQPSft 

1 'W2  imPhOPh 

•M 

! S 

!W 

' PPO 

'> 

■ffl 

■ W 

1 w 

'OOPeiS 

'WWW 

02  O 

^.Ph 

fl  .2  <0  ^ Q2* 

9 3.22  a 

2 |s!  P . U 
Q Q >-3  g 1-3 

H H P5  ^ P5 

s a s g s 

o o o P o 


-d  <d  T3  'fl  'fl 

G)  <D  <D  ^ Q) 

W W W w W 

cj  cj  5 

^ r^H  ^ rC 

o o o 0 o 

^ ^ ^ Jh 

fl  fl  fl  fl  3 

Ph  PD  PLh  Ph  Pm 


.S  <1 

^ N N P +J 

C M +j  +J  rh  ,r) 

'C  «>  fl  fl  u s 
fl  fl  c g2 

K**oQ 

_ 5;  ?-*  ^ o 
£ bHHoh 

'S^SSSS 
>2  o o o o 

•Ph  3 P P P L 

ojSppiHt; 

o 

41  o 'fl  'fl  "fl  'fl 
P +J  <U  01  <U  02 
CO  CC  CQ  02 
fl  fl  S3  fl  s3  d 
ft  ft  'A  'A  'A  'A 
Spuuuo 

g g u P P u 
fl  fl  3 fl 
GO  02  Ph  Ph  Ph  Ph 

* 00  00  00  00  00 


TABLE  VI. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Fertilizers  Collected  in  1917  (continued) 


72 


o 

*^U90  J9d 

o° 

2 N 
33 Oh 

•;u90  jgd 

‘9iqniosui 

§d 

S o 

•^U90  J9d 

Pk  a 

*P9^J9A9J 

puB  9iqnios 

•}U9D  J9d  ‘J9}BM.  Ut 
9jqnios  ‘osH  ‘qsB}Od 


•;U90  J9d 

‘WO.L 


1 © © 


O^HOOlOCOOtOOHCC005^HO^OH|>OCO 


WHCOlO^OOlOh  1 I LO  CO  tO  CO 
dddddridri  1 idriddo 


OCOr^COl0050hOtOONHl>tOOrt(OinOrilO 
<— dcvioddr-iMcodo^di^i^LOLOLOLOi^ 


ocoooo^oooo 

di^doic<Jc<ido} 


0000 


O^OhONO 

to*  co’  d to  to  d 


OOC20rHOC>TjHC>OOC2CO»>.|>.0}Ol^HtO 

OOrHfHrHoddodrHrHrHrHC^do 


OMOOiN 

<M  cd  co  d 00 


10  Z>  co 

odd 


OOHOi^OQOOOHOO^COlQ 

OHOHrloHlddddc) 


•}U00  J0d 
‘©Apo'e  pm3  0iqn 
-IOS 


lO  (M  CO  LO  (M  l 
to  t*h  to  LO  1 

d o d d d 


6 1 


CO  CO  to  o 


i t*  <m 

1 d d 


•}U00  J0d  ‘0IUT3S 

-ao  ©iqnfosui 

J0}'BAi  0 Al^O'BUJ 


*}U0D  J0d  ‘oiu v3 

-jo  ©iqnfosui 

J0}T3A\.  0Ai^oy 


^ ^ co  ^ co 
d d d d o 


M c§  i <N 

do  id 


1 00  co 

1 T-H 

! d o 


(N  CO  CO  CO  <N 

o o o d d 


0000 


<M  (M 

d d 


188 


•}U0O  j0d 
‘OIU'BSJO 

0iqnios  aareM 


HHOCqcq 

d d d d d 


0000 


rJH  (M 

rH  t— H 

d d 


•^U9D  J9d  ‘S^JBS 

biuouiiub  puB  sg^BJ} 
-TU  UI  gjqnjOS  J9^B^\ 


d d d d o 


CO  00  o ^ 
CO  (M  J>  H 

O d d rH 


CO  00 
to  Cv| 

o d 


aa  *°n  uono0dsui 




S S S 73  S 


'o  ! ! 


13  KS  T3  'C  T3  S 


8 


w ww  W -w  w W -w  W W w w -w  O w V 'O  rOrO 

GGGG%G%G%GGGG%g%aagG 

0000?0330=30000?0B,0000 

MH  «t— 1 ■*-(  =4-1  60H-I  60'W  60HH  «(-l  =4—1  «M  tUD  =+— I 60 <t-l  «t-t  «M  <W 


I1®  I ! 

!*  s i 


.a  ! a la  la 

I'OTD  03rOrO  ^3  T3  G T3  o3  'O  o3pOfcJ 

aa%aa%5%G%ar 


§3 


Mm 


a>  o 

a 

’>  3 33 
•a  tit! 

OT  o 


• CO  lO  <M 


S a 
a a«  2 

aj  oj  g 

g 

02  CO  CO  — I 

003S 

OOWPh 


CD  O 
lO  LO  rH  GO 
CO  CO  ITS  00 


i g 

in  2 


o* 
S o 

02  O 

Sh  Jh 

PhPQ 


a p 
o ® 
odM 


.s 
I o « 
•fcW 


<N  CO  05  CO 


r-* 

2 & 


OJ 


t»| 

l! 

§"3 

oa 


CO  00 
b- 


r 


) 00  c 

b*  JN  J>-  J>-  X>-  J>-  ■!>  J>-  j>  J_  

cocococococococococococococo* 


a 


O 


§ ,°ss 
§§sl5 

g ghflCJ 

Oo5  . • 
^ g »00 
a >,*  * 
.2  -3  o 
«*« 


“ouPT 

03  . . 

<J  ' 

02  ^ ^ 
® hjrs' 
o 
« 


.a  a 02 
a =3§ 

as  © 
£ a g 
”w 

i . ” 

^ .a 

>>*  O 
O u. 

k a 


o 

60  O _ (h 

ft^.2 

03  •»»  .72 

K Mpi]  jj 

02  02  . ® 43 

to  03  l-£  O 

>>,.  t»>4c 

o o 

» « 


73 


* oo 
h o 

O CO 


3*0 

33 

5 O 


> O 

+-> 

3 S3 
hH 


0 § 


O © © O r-l 

Hointood 


O CO  CO  O Ui 

ci  (M  •—  <M  *— 


i !' 


el  i i d 

03  ’’O  'D  c3  'O 

»3  a a 53  s 

2 3 3 2 3 

3 O O 3 O 

«w  bon-i 


I O O 

loo 
! © ® 
i bo  bo 
i <o  a> 

|oo 

jOO 


i eo  rn 
I rH  oo 

I -h  co 


o o o co  co 
CO  CO  CO  cB  CO 


Q M 

3 3 

30 

3 S’ 
jo' 


© o 

sis 

fn  ^p—  t 


I © co 
I oo  oo 

I 03  03 


M M N N N CO 


O 00  to  LD  O OO  CO 


t*  i CO  O 


HH  I 03 


HN  lOHHO  I H H i H H H 


00  00O5©LDCOLO0000G0T*r*00t^a0  00  00  C0000000O3O3O303O3«—  *— 


I'D  I'D  ! 
8 8 


id  id  . . _ . , ^ „ , , , 

cs 'O -o -a -a -a -d  sp  0313  ^'v  ©dd  ddd  So  cSd,d,d  3rd'd'drr 
SggggigsgSIsasagsgsfegagaabBdqd 


1 

i i 1 i i i 

i i i i 

1 

1 O <M  O rH  O O O O C 

IS  rH 

1 0 m (N  N j 

1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 l | 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 

till 

j HrlHHHrl  HCOCO'H 

l 

INNNN 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

hjc  co  co  0 cm 
1 

1 1 1 1 

III! 

COhShcOCOOOOCOOOO  1 

Iooohh 

1 

1 

1 

1 

j 00  O OS  CO  00  i>  00 

• i 

O O O <N  <M  1 

1 

1 

1 1 t 1 

1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 

1 

1 

lOHHH 

1 

1 

: 

lOHOHrlHri 

1 

i 

! 00  O 1 0 

1 <M  CO  1 05 

1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 

01  1 iO  1 J>-  1 03  O 1 

O 1 <N  1 LO  i CO  J>-  l 

1 1 tH  CD  05 

1 1 CO  |>  Ol 

l 

1 

1 

1 1 O T*  1 03  © <0 

l 1 © t-  1 H HCO 

; 1 

IOO  IH 

1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 

rH  Iri  id  1 d d 1 

1 1 d d d 

1 

1 

1 1 d 0 Ihhh 

|i 

l (M'O  1 O 
l CO  CO  1 CO 

1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 

00  1 LO  | CO  1 CO  O 1 

CO  1 CO  IT*  l CO  rH  1 

| l CD  H H 

1 1 CO  CO  00 

l 

1 

1 

1 1 O CO  1 00  O r-l 

1 1 CM  1 CO  CO  hJH 

1 

1 d d id 

1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 

d j d id  ! d d j 

1 1 d d d 

1 

l 

j ! O d 1 d d d 

i 

1 co  co  1 00 

inrt  1 00 

1111 

1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 

1 CO  j Ol  1 rH  0 1 

00  1 CO  1 CO  I <M  rH  1 

1 1 <N  H*  HO 

1 1 O]  0-1  CO 

1 

I 

1 

1 lin-HI  1 O rH  rH 

1 1 <N  CO  1 rH  OO  -+l 

1 

loo  I rH 

1111 

1111 

0 10  id  1 d d 1 

1 1 d d d 

1 1 0 0 1 d 0 d 

1 

1 0 0 1 uo 

IOH  1 00 

1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 

^ 105  1 th  1 in  ! 

O l CO  1 rH  1 rH  Csj  1 

J ilODCl 

i 

j 

1 1 t-  10  1 00  CO  N- 
1 l rH  03  l t*  t*  -H* 

1 

1 d 0 id 

1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 

0 10  10  1 0 d 1 

1 1000 

1 1 

l 

1 

1 1 © d 1 d d d 

j 

jss  ifc  j 

1 1 1 1 

fiji 

1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 

rH  l CO  1 rH  1 03  LO  1 
rH  I LO  IH  i CO  CO  l 

1 1 

J 1 N CO  H 

1 1 C<J  (M  CO 

l 

1 

1 

I 1 GO  ID  1 © © rH 

1 1 rH  rH  1 ID  © LO 

! 

j d d Id 

1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 

0 id  id  1 d d 1 

' 1 d d d 

1 

1 1 © © idod 

3 3 

4uj«£h  bo«M  bO'in  bOcS 


33232333 
O o 3 O 3 O ‘ ‘ 

bo  CM  «M  bO<4H  bOctH  I 


I ! 

3 I I 

t 3 3 
2 3 3 
P O O 

bo«*-i  eM 


D 


3 

53  'O  T3  'O 

^333 
2 3 3 3 
?ooo 

OJO'HH  «m  mh 


I c3  1 L- 

w JO’S'O 

1*1? I* 

I 3 3 

I C3  © "P  © P 

|®fiwo®S 

'Pni-q^^OO* 


a>  1 

ig  ! 1 1 

• • bA 

1 Qr> 

! 0 ! Ir3 

1 H 

! a g 

College  ( 

Seymour 

Underwo< 

l5o 

1 CG 

•o  "S 

! 0 >* 

1 u 0 

1 W Ph 

I CO  O 

I2§8 

1 N- 


3 

£ 

® ® 3 

S 

>£  B 
aa  o ,3 

3^,0 
Oh  W O 


Is! 

W QQ  <0  02  , 53 

s*as  it 


£ 

«®  i -■  aj 


sip  If  i Ills 

&-1  fn  fD  Sh  i D £h  1 Jh  D tn 

OPQOffl  ifso  io«© 


LDLDLDlDLDlDlDlDlD©©O3O3C0< 
W(N(M(NN(NMHr 1 © © © © © ' 
1C  LO  LO  LO  1C  LO  LO  H H 0 CO  CO  U 1 
10lOLOLQlOlOLDCOCOCOCOCOCOCO< 


>COT*r*H<r*H<tOLOLOlD< 

'OOOONOKNNWW 

• ^cococi^cocococococoi 

• cocococococococococo< 


X) 

„ 3 
o,1-1 

s« 

O 53-® 
0 3 g 

MSo 

BXJcp 

.2  3 PM 

r,i 

O 


u ® ^ ' O o ~ 3 ' S £ ® *5  S 1 rd  ® lpjcj'£^oi?~'£'®03rs-c,,.3,2'tiOQJ’®'S 

« 0^.2  O § a!  O ®0  OhiJ^^  0^,3  gd'3  o.Sf^  ?3og  S H 3>^l  al 

§IS8S»5Ms|isfi«i«S^l^§ta^§|<,>Ss£aoS^s 

lo^|o  .|ofW<i 

- S"~  8'J  g°|j-£  ?g!^g  i-g*  S §£  l|  g 8 ^1^1 

* " * * "S  * -d  * * * ’d  * * * * *3  * * 

3 g g e as 

a>  m 


I O 
! Ph 


I °< 

m 

O 

i£ 


slsji 

.9  h o «h  a 


>©£ 
ss®g§s 

S ^ S°  pea 
tJH  S.c 

<D  , H CCS  . 

«h£  « 


o S 

tH  ® 


Sg 


§ "Sj 
'SS  o 


iOoooojccjcocomcoi 

1 CO  CO  CO  CO  o o o o o o < 
OOGOOOQOOCiOlOioiOiaji 
ICOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO' 


bo 

_g 

® 

.02 

o 

0*8 


s g ?.4S 


h'O  cSfi' 


£ S 

> c3 

Is 

W 8 


o 

© 

© w 

3 gi  bo 
o a)  O o 


'P  d 'C  crt  'P 
® ® <u  qj  a> 
CO  CO  Kl  05  W 

53  c3 


■5SnS^ 


« O 

rtf)  r**  3 • O • <X>  fD  <12 

§P"  4’rri’  i”ri"’r*"i”i 

E1-1 


bo<H  S ■ 

^ (P  3 ' 

Tp  <*  v 


fa 

^ o 


'W 

fl  .^O 

^5  •d  . 5 

'gssssi 

>0000^ 

.H  ^ M ^ ^ 

(U  <M  «M  <M  <M 

O o 

(D'd'd'd'd  +j 
U <D  <D  <D  <12 
WWW  W 

a <ri  ccJ  aj  d 02 
a-cs  ^ pC  ft 
£70000 

H C.  C.  C,  D 

|j  3 3 3 3 
02  CL|  Ph  Ph  (L, 


TABLE  VI.— Report  of  Inspection  of  Fertilizers  Collected  in  1917  (continued) 


74 


33  o 
Ph 


•}uao  aad 


■}uaa  aad 

•aiqniosuj 


•}uao  aad 

‘p8^J0A0J 

puB  aiqnios 


•;u80  aad  ‘aa^BAV  in 
eqqnios  ‘osH  ‘qSB}0«l 


•}uao  aad 

Woj, 


•^uao  aad 
,0Apo’B  puB  aiqn 
-ps  aa}BA\.  i'b^o.l 


•}U0O  J9d  ‘OIUBS 

-ao  eiqniosui 
aa}BA4.  aAt}OBUI 


•}uaa  aad  ‘oiubS 
-ao  aiqniosui 
aa^BAi.  aAi^oy 


•}uao  aad 
‘oiuBSao 
aiqnios  aa}B.M. 


■}uao  aad  ‘s^bs 

tUUOlUUIB  pUB  Sa^BJ^ 

-iu  m aiqnios  aap?A\ 


gg  -om  uonoadsui 


•on;  i^piwo 


2 5 

9 u 

o a- 


v a- 
Sa 
2S 


00  o 
CT  d 


o iHOh'OOcoowin^ 


lOHOHHOHCOOO 


H CO  H H O CO  r| 


O^INNOOCOOtIIOJOHHOIOO 

N(N(NN0000005^^^00COOO 


OCONOIOOONOWOOO 


NO)OHO«f! 

C5CO0OO1WI 


O rH  rH  O O O 
hhhincoh 


oohooojooj 


•^tOtO<£>OOOOOSOI>-f>COO}QO^tOtO 
OOOOOOt— Ir-ir— irHOOOOOO 


oot-o^tomoooo 

OOrHOOOOO 


I (M  00  00 
I CO  H CO 

! o d d 


i o O I o o 


CO  to  I 00  fN 


r- 1 CO  CO  iCOrri  i tO  CO  I ''T  CO  ICO(N 

QOO  i O O lOO  too  lOO 


I o O l o o 


IQMM 

C4  rH  OO 

Igoo 


i 03 

i d d 


183 
1 d o 


i-r  © I to  rH 
<N  CO  I rH  rH 

do  i o o 


i o o i o o 


I o o I o o 


o o 
d d 


4) 

C . 
03  T3 

C o 
bud! 


rH  CO 

t— I rH 

! d d 


I 

! d d 


I CO  !>•  I Cvl  GO 

I rH  rH 

i d d 


i o o 

d d 


I CO  CD  1 rH  rH 
I O O l O O 


dd  § 


! ! a ! ! a ! J g « > 

rQ  73  c3rOrO  c3  TI5  Tj  C3  Tj  “ 


LO  CO  i I o o c 


o oq 

<N  Ol 


TJ  C3  Tj  rCJ  Cw  rQ  w 

oo?oo?ooSoo3oo 

tin  S(-I  fcjQet— I =t— I town  WlH-IM-l  bfl'fH'fH 


_ , , rt  i ! 1=3  ! £h  i « • 
c3  Td  >73  'O  cd  TO 

^dd^dd^d^d^jd 

300300?0?0p0 
SUJttH'tH  bD'M'M  tUOH-H  btlHH  bfl'+H 


Cl 
03  73  03  "O  o3  T3 
u c (h  t3  sh  a 

03  5 C 3 03  3 

bO«w  tuO'*-’ 


OT3 
o C O 
35  O 
33  a>  > 


§5  2 
K§C5 


_ | C 

® h I Sh  33 

c 3 ! 3 ao 
t»  o ! o c 

a is! 

>>  1 >>  g 


|,fO 


C _ _ 

P302  '02  PP 


© 

»h  33 

! o c 

'£P 


Og3 

S 00 

Mr 


i <M  to 

I 00  00 

1 l> 


I 00  o 

! X>  JC- 


1-oS  ! 1 

! o > 1 § 

! d 

T3 

1 O 
' O 

lis 

i d w i R 

■ ^ C | 83 

l o> 

! ho 

1 ^ 

| c 03 

IS  > 

g 03  « 

1,2  > 15 

I o 

' c 

1 

'OK 

'OK  'O 

■ m 

' o 

00  00 
rf  LO 

r- 1> 


^ 1 d r- 

03  ! o ! c 


d 

S i« 


-M  | F-H  I - 


COCOCO-T^^tptOtO  CO 


®®®®®®§SSSioc6ffl<o®® 


T3  tuo 
„C  C 

^ ?3 


c 

03  m ® 

a 33  02 


g 

O 03 
O (3  53 


rr.2  34 
03  rrH  03 

•2dg 


O o O 

*CJ 

(D  O O 


03  6j  03 

'pg'S 


c >>« 

^ 2 d o d 

U°f,2o3aj®o3HsJSflC 

iMfluaW'd 


C5 


!ph- 


s «o-  ■"  ® O'  ■ 5 6 §®  oS 


O' 


W M' 
^ CD 


>,  tn  co  O 

^gSSwoSo SSSrfgo 

2*1  1 a a 

5t302  02  02  02 

a *2 
02 


SOS® 
oO^  >> 

rd  d <0 

HO  CO  u 

o -Wft 

Z--'M 


o 
£ 

C CD 

® <3  H-I  • 

fflSodi 

a 

02 


O 

p;S 

C Sh 

03O 

S 1 ‘5  ’ ' r“  33 
3 g C . c .pH  ra 
njFdOoaOo^0 
O|MO§<l0o|g 

3 § 

+H  — l-J 1 • H 33  m .2  +3 

i C.M  « 


11“ 


« c a1 

<u 


; o a' 

;33  ca  . 

< rxi  +h  P»» 

r 02  33 


s 


3W 


b.sS 

'O  * 


w ^ 


75 


oo 

<N  C<i 


OlOOM 

C<3C<1C<1H 


I O CO  O 
I CO  CO 


i O H 

rH  I CM  O 


© 


© 


a i 0 

^ ^ o3 'd 'd 

% a ^ a a 
5 s S ft  3 
■3o3oo 

6U0«*=;  ta«w<w 


S3  i 1=1 

S3  ^ 'O 

S ^ s 

=s  § a § 

bfl«w 


O H H © Oi  H < 
H 03  <N  H r- 


O CO  O O 09  C<1  O * 
C<1  -r-1  00  CO  GO  CO  I 


■ OOlOCOO 

■ GO  00  CO  oi  00 


■ H © 1 

ci  (M  (M< 


© © 
00 


iCOOOOOlOOOlOCDOO£-i 


i^COCOCMCOOOOO<NNNfON 


(M  l <N  CO  1 CO  l H 1 


is  IS8S8 


i in  i ^ co 

loo  loo  lO  IOOOO 


I ^ CO  I <M  00 

Ido  i o o 


© © © o 


ISS 
! © © 


is  m&ss 

Id  i d d d o 


's  w,  i w. 


ra  I'd 


OOOJOOOOOOOJ 


i o o o o 


c<j  I o i>  co  io 

<N  I CO  <N  CO  C<J 

© I o o o o 


OHNO 

iNOOO 

IOOOO 


i H © H 
i(MCOH(M 


*d  I'g  ! 

S J I 5 I I S | 55  i i i 1 ® i ® I ® i i i i « 1 3 I i 1 1 

l I 2 | I 2 I 2 I I I ! "3  I a I a ! I I I d I a I I I I 

S-T3T3  c3  TJ  T3  03  T3  S3  T3  rOrO  g 'C  g'O  £2222  £2  2 2 22  2 

-Hn,Ms-ladnaa’-'s3;Hftftftftbft2S£S9SSHd  aflc!C 

Do^O^OO^OO'^O^OOOO^O^O^OOO.p 

5jQ«+H  bX)e+H  e2  fclX)  «W  «4H  fcUQH  bX) «H  MH  «H  bX)  «4H  bX)^  bX)*H 


5 '« s © 

I 02  S 
d i'Bs 
'WM 


i o oo 

I S © 

l o t~ 


o 

0 \t 

1 il 

5 !« 


i ^3  i © 


O 

LQ  O 
I—  © 

i CO  co 


i © r- 
i H O 

i r-  oo 

l CD  x> 


1 1 be  1 b<) 

i i ® ui  o 

i is;  a)  d 1 w 

! © 

i © 1 id 

i S-ft  i-2 

iSa  I ft 

> S | 13 

l <D  O — d-  l ft 
i 43  bflS  ^ 1 « 

! > 
io 

i i ^ 

1 §«  O 

' £43  >.-g 

l Ph  0)  l OP 

i cs^d 

i^o  !o 

i o o . 1 2 

1 .13  o o+5  12 
•> 

1 o 

1 >H 

'ffl 

S4)  « « g 
c3  S 03  ^1 

<M  H H OJ 
© H CD  CD 
CD  Jt>  £— 


CD  CD  X>  JF— 


u *>  'S  Ph 


© © g>  ft 

w w ® 
.52  •— » <p 

g fl  A?  o yi 
h 

5<H  ® 'O 

®»02"S 
® ® «*»  S “ 

J J «“  3 

g g 

Slags 


CQ 

O W 

£ A 

<p  W 

2 c 

43  u 

CQ  3 


to  <t| 


_,  o> 

^-g-gtS  a* 


n 


Una 


c3 


• • vi  H «W  ^ 

'd 'd  >»  'd 

<D  Olr^r^^^r^r! 

c3  c3  > ft  c3  > 

O V su 

+J  +j  ft  U 

O O 3 3 S =3 

£ £i  Ph  Ph  i — i Ph 


^3  42 


NN^ 

00  00  o o o 

o CD  CD  CD  CD 


Oi  O H H 
CO  CO  H H 
CD  CD  CD  CD 
CD  CD  CD  CD 


CD  CD  O O 

X>  J>- 


O 
oT  S 

gid' . 

>|CU«Q 

§ .2  5?  > 
ft  eS.S  ^ 

|5-“ 


-a 

O 
O 

t IfiSi  ig  i If  ISI  Is  Igs  II  il  ii  ijs’  |lfl  I i '!s 

I ilfhl  1 S^lilliilillJjlJ  |!si|il  111 
1 1! TM miBW.U IlMiU^J 


o 

O 

03  O 


„a:s 
* .S3  © <o>  o 
3 o ^ 

: a > o r 

^02 ,20^2 


3 bxi  c tuo  <x> 

a«*  «* 
■ftS  cc 


CO 


S3 
43 

a 

o 

43 

Ph 

2 
‘3 
<3 

(!)  On  ~ 

-oOfl.S 

CCS  S M 


i 62 

;oo 

’=32 


^ S 

S3  d 


w ~ 


. W ID 

. bo 
u to  c3 
ft 


eo 


w „ 1 o 2 

O ”2i°  ®-K  « 

«<  43  * ™ .r 
45  CQ  02  CQ 

w 


3osw«wE2ii,  a '« ~ « 55  a 5 "-v ■“■*  2 | ^ (3 2 

„ o . ® &j  £ S £ ® 43  u v„®  ^ 


S3  O ~ : S3  o 


CO  CO  CQ 


2 • ° 

WPh  >>P 

1=1  pp  s "i  s 

<aW  -ft  O-ft 

45d^O^ 
— * * * 
ss  ^ 

50  02 


_ fl  • M 42 

O g -g  M Hi®  o PI  O 
^45Ko^^45Ph  15 


0)  CO  ^ _ Cl) 

ft  ^0)^“ 

: 

ft^j  ft  . £ ft 
5£®  3®®J?8 
hM®h®  • ft  g 

•S  02  ^ 

- 1- i - i-e^ 

> PlIH  0<(-l  0'"3^h 
•S  H ^ HI 
0>  <D  ^ ^ ^ ^ "Z  A 


<Dr&  a Cj^SjbjM 
ft  ft  G'ftft'ft  ftW 
g2  g 2 g 2 g 

s3  c3  ft  c3  ft  s3 
CO  Ph  CO  P CO  Ph  O! 

*000000 


TABLE  VI. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Fertilizers  Collected  in  1917  (continued) 


76 


O a 
1° 
& 

"2* 
.3  o 
Ph  «S 


•}uaa  jad 

‘l^oi 


•}uaa  aad 

•aiqniosui 


OhW'lihOe^MOMOOOHH 

r-ir4©r-irHt>oi©rH<NtSi-4NC»3 


t'-t-COLOOSO'tftOOOi 

OHHOHHHHHl 


O OS  05  O to 
© 05  06 1>  © 


•juaa  aad 
‘pa^aaAaa 
pui3  aiqnios 


OHON'#OB)BOhonwwo^coi'OfflHOiaMOO-# 

NNNNNM'-OOOr'N«N<-6oo)0>(MNNtONNO(i«joO 


ooi^om 
«o  © © co  *— 


00 

© e> 


•}uaa  jad  ‘ja^-BAi.  ui 
aiqnios  ‘osH  ‘qsB^Od 


© 00  r- 

CO  C<j  cs 


I 


O © 00  © 


j m 10 © r~  j 
1 © © © (N  (M  1 


•}uao  aad 

‘TOO£ 


©t''-00N©00©©©J>-©l>t-I>-'#©©lO00  00r-lrO©00Ti<©00®>OJ®©00  00O>©<N< 
HHOHOOHHHHHHrHHOOOOOOHHHONNNHHHHHOONNi 


•;uao  aad 

•aAi^oB  pub  aiqn 
-los  aa^BAV 


CO  CO 
© © © 


10  00  rH  © CO 
© © r4  © © 


l <N  <N 


*}U 00  j0d  ‘OIUBS 

-ao  oiqnfosui 

J0}T3A1  0ai;o^ui 


I LO  J> 
I <N  rH 

I d d 


o o 


O CD  ^ 
NHH 

dod 


(N  <N  rH  CO  tO 

d d d o d 


i co 


*;u0D  j0d  ‘oiireS 

-jo  ©iqniosui 
J01T3A1  0Ai}oy 


l co  co 

1 d d 


os  10 

rH  rH 

o o 


00  00  CO  O LO  I rH  rH 
IN  rH  CO  rH  <N  i rH  |> 

d d d d d I d d 


jS3 

1 d d 


*;u00  J0d 

‘OLU'BSJO 

0iqnios  J0VBAV 


CO  CO 
<N  rH 

d d 


CO  <N  O 
rH  rH  LO 

dod 


I LO  CO 

1 d d 


o 

d d d o d 


rH  <N  1 CO  CC 


1 ® 
! d d 


*^U0O  J0d  ‘s^bs 
TTIUOUIUI^pUB  S0}tfjq 
-mux  0{qnjos  J0^a\ 


00000 


CO  05 
rH  O 


\t 

© © ! © 


SS  ‘ON  ttorjoadsui 


•on  I'bioibo 


cS  73 
£ (=1 

2 3 

3 O 

Sad'S 


'O  03 
3^3 

0 B, 0 

*4H  CUO  <4—1 


■o  03  T3 

a % pi 
3 2 ^ 
o 5,0 

HH  bJD«+H 


i'S 


S i’S 

<£>  | a> 


-OH 

a 3 

3 3 

o o 


3 i 13  ! 3 

pOrO  ^r0p0r0r0*0 

33^33333^33^3^33 
33233333^3323233 
0050000050050  5 00 
«(H  «4— I SUO'+H  <t-l  «H  'M  «t— I bO'H'l-l  ftD't-l  SUO'W  <(H 


'O 

1 j 

§ T3 

S o 

2 3 

?o 


3 

c3  T3  'O 

^ c3  5 
3§3o 

Puo  «*— 1 Sud'H 


*H  >» 

bo  o 

3^ 

WS 


.•3  o 


.2  O c3 

S'0  N 

3 3 

SOW 


bud  0.5 


aJ 

pi 


»h.S  a3  3 

O o W £ ^ 

s-SS.2^ 

33®£® 

WOwMW 


Ip  rH 


35®  !m 

► to  1,2 

>>>»  lO 

2 03  K. 

3 **-<  fe 

® 3 « 

Wo  1 >5 


'O'O  I © 


a a 


I > 

• >> 

t-i 

fl 


05  05  00  < 

i>- 0 ' 

LO  LO  CO  < 


I 05  05  05  CO  CO  I 

, 05  05  05  CO  CO  CO  CO  C 
1 H H iH  CO  CO  CO  CO  C 

' co  co  co  co  co  co  co  c 


1 co  co  co  CO 


ilOlOlO(M(MNNHH 
> rH  H rH  CO  CO  CO  CO  00  00 
• 050505050505050505 

>cococococococococo 


33WO  K 
HH  . <D 

^.S  ^ .E3 
o*S  b 


S3 

fi£ 


•3  -SW 

3 9 3-S 

flssp  3 

Sfi’cS 
o « 2 i° 

4H>  P5.  4^ 
.Ki  «+_(  r-i  - , 


a 

653 

©•S3 

■^2 

.5 

3 9 s 
3 


•r-i  * — * * 


. O 

o-S 

|0 » „ 
SS&8“^ 
lw.2  2^  S 

3t»[ 

«|w  2°^, 


3 

.a  j o 
3 !o 

w ^.9  M S«  .. 

t isaSo-sl 
7S  « §>W 

“ .S3  « . 


o 

(H 

0 

3 

1 o 

Pa 

9 


3W 

3 3 


w gr 

2^ 

3 >• 

3253 

s|SW 

i Q;  H 

! p.W.2 

5?  “ 3 

®3oj 
330  3, 
•CQ  , 05 

» S ' 

02  00 


3 

ft 

0 0 3 
£C5  O 
a . M 
3 3 

.2 .2  °®  ft  ® 
■p-ppH  a® 
g g 2 =*=5! 
S S "05_ 


^ 3 2 

aSgSp” 


WW  S ► P. 


;W^ 


02 


77 


oo  t-  © oo  r— 


c3  d d A d 

5 § 3 « § 
5,  O O 2,  ° 

tn«w  >M  aC'M 


idd 
i d d 
A S3 
!d  d 

l-S  *3 


I 03  00  I CO 

i i-i  in  • • 

I oj  to 


l rH  00  in  rH  OH  j 


© in 
t>  to 


in  © in  to  in  t> 

O r-i  O d © 03 


inn  in  hh 


© © © © © in 

oo  oo  to  to  © o> 


© 03 
03  Ol 


OONNOMH 

HCtmOHIMN 


in  to  co 

MNN  IHHO 


© Hit  00  © © rH  03 

in  in  -h!  m © i-h  © 


otooooinoo©ooi-t03 


1 

© © to  © © © o 1 

C<i«-*-rH  © Hri  1 

! © © 

! C^5  r-i 

1 II  II 

1 II  II 

! ! ! ! i o © © ci  ci  ci  h in  ci 

j 

i 

i 

i 

i 

in  nit  hh  in  oo  03 1- © t>  oo  © 

.©©©©©  © © CO  ^ CO  © rH 

©©  C3  C3  00©  00©©©©00  00©©  © 03  00  H H C3 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

j Hit  CO  1 © 

1 CO  03  ' CO 

! © © i © 

t-  1 rH  © 

© IHH  1 

© 1 to"  CO 

8 

© 

q |§  ife 

r-i  1 © 1 © 

CO  iNHiO  1 00  © 

© 1 © © © 1 T*  CO 

© 1 © © © 1 © © 

8 j^qSo 

r-i  Iddo 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

I © c-  ! © 

1 l-l  rH  .03 
! © © ! © 

” jss 

O 1 o o 

6 

© 

© 1 00  1 CO 

T*  l (N  l CO 

© i © i © 

I 00  © © I C<3 

Cvl  1 (N  (N  H 1 T*  LO 

© ! © © © ! © © 

§ |SS?g? 

© 1 © © © 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

\%S  jg 

i © © id 

rH  i © 03 
© 1 03  d 

CO 

cq 

© 

in  i co  1 03 

in  i © i co 

© i © i © 

<N  ! © © <M  i © 

© l CM  i — 1 (M  1 rH  03 

© jOOO  [ © © 

?— I ! ©t-00 

CO  INHW 

© 1 © © © 

t 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

iHH  i tr 
t © © i © 

! © © 1 © 

-dH  I rH 

O IH(N 

O ICO 

(M 

i-H 

© 

00  ! <M  I CO 

l (M  l CO 

© ! © ! © 

© i © CO  © i ^ x> 

© 1 CO  CO  03  1 © © 

© ! © © © 1 © © 

M j C3  S 03 

d i d d d 

i 

i 

i 

i 

irlN  t 

1 (M  i-H  1 H 

loo  ! o 

© 1 
^ 1 
• 1 
© 1 

© 

© 

io 

© 

8 i £ is 

© i © i © 

8 issq 

d i d d d ! d d 

8 'm&r$ 

rH  1 © © © 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

! 

1 

1 

d i ! d | d | d 

1 i ij  ! 1 i| 

a ! I d ! did 

I did 

: I : J 

! did 

i i i ! i i i 

+J  ! +J  +- 

d ! d ! d i p 

! ii  M N M i ii  i i ii 

j i fl  ! i ! a ! . a t a 1 ,,  a 

«3«33 
d o ft  o o 

bJ0<w  SuOmh«m 


ss  d S’O  Ad 
h a h a h ai 
ss  ^3  ^ d ^ d 
d o ft  o d o 

tuo<i-(  b£<t-t  bflu-i 


£ ft 

A 3 
d O 
tuo'+d 


S3  3 

?o?„ooo?.ooo 


d d 

Jh  t-i 

QJ  Q 


O 

rH  LO 

© CO 
CO 


>K 


; o <o 

&£>  | te’p, 

d « a da 

s “ 5?  33  d 

in  O o3  i i-i  S3 

'<0 


© 00  00  IHN 
ea  -^i  03  i <n  oo 
© © © i in  03 
t-t-  t-  1 1>  r- 


:s  is 


>» 

.sw 

33  -H> 

is§ 

I3& 

OOQ 


Ol  CO 
O OJ 
CO  x>  t- 


^ o B 
a*  - 


w dn 

<y  ^ ! 

5“  a/ 

W Q 

Pi  W 1 


<u 

« c S 
5 o c 


i<  3 
03  <U  Pn 
33  ft 
w 

~ d ° 
SsO 


<B  32  UJ  _ 


<3  a> 


« g £ a 
£ £ o ft 
£ gQ  © 

S 03  1 

.H  » H 

l>cEa 
t>d  o«w 
5 ^ d! 
d c <l_l 
<u  o d o 

§°sr 

-2  ® S3  ® 
™ 0.33  q, 
Hg“g 
° A ft  A 

£ 03  Ph  02 


In  S in  © © 

03  03  (M  H<  Hi 
co  CO  CO  CO  CO 


O O CO  CO  © LO 


co  co  r*  • 


o o 

J>-  ^ 


©©©©©©©©©© 


C3  2 

fcg 
a d 

C3  *H  ■ . 

mOmw 

S°s«  s d 

Oh  O O 

Q .S3  CQ  ^ CO  OQ 

-1^5=3  =3 

A Q,  Ph 

.2  oo  _ « ® 

fl  £i  d +3  -u 
§ 5 ° A O o 

ggm-osin 

“•gssss 

sSflMWW 


O CO 
bfi  . 
S3  o 

•Sfc 


•ft  ^ 
U A 
. 133 

i^  !& 

ift  1® 

1 B 1 

! 2 iH 

a = 

:S  |« 

O g 

Id  n <v 

hO 

<D 

''3  2 5? 

-ft  ft  A 
m ^*t  q,^  , 
'H  .o  « fl  . 

! o 
■O 


ft 
© ! 02 
+3  1 ^ 

c3  1 ^ 
! 

«s 
■ a 
! S 

!o 


•p  '3 

03  ft 

pHWeq 

A "c 


!Ph 


Ih 

133 

.2  .a 


. H * .2  ►- 

“s3°Sfc^ 

p«of4g;|m 

.Ph  .co 


An  . goS  ^ 

o 'S  <J  © d>  oOm 

g fH  * CQ  CC  ^ 

3 S 3 


§ S'S'g 

| g|Sasfi^i 
<3  ssfiglii* 
l^s|««"Sn5 

6 ||h|qw^|qw 

'O  u cj  c3 

S3©  o o 

■flO 


6 . 
o . 
60® 

h.s°6 

ft  d ©q 


•i-t  *p-!  | o i 1 ^ O 

!§3  'flS  ' '&g£° 

! J|lsoI|3gs 

sw  3WdO»QJ'-'r  os 


m °tn  ® 3© 

®B*h  dO  sO^£ 
ns,.0d0fidWS^ 

S3  .3  -K.  ^ 2 53  ^ d 

gsla^  a.ss^gs-o « 

a .D.2?o.£f  > o’w^aS 

Dfl  iH  t-,83©  . 3 « 

■ oOWOWOOOW^H 

3 1*  | * * * I*  * 

> > 


»5 

> 


<D  CO 

W rO 

d s 

f-  d 
d © 

<w  O 
«°w 
60  © +J  g 

^ bo  fe 
qi-IT  L 

:=^w 

6 ss  >1  pq 


'Sgss 

© . <h  <M 

o d 

© © d d 
Hi  d © © 

«•“  S S 

a-  33  33 
3?  O O 
S +J  H,  H. 
ri  o 3 p 

CO  ^ P4  PL, 


TABLE  VI. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Fertilizers  Collected  in  1917  (continued) 


78 


.2  » 

*^uao  aad 
*WOi 

oO 

33  CL 

•^uao  aad 

•aiqniosui 

gd 

33  0 

•^uao  aad 

Ph  a 

‘paiaaAaa 

puu  aiqniog 

MOoeoN'#iOM'#wffi'!tiooinHMi'ioin|>HinHHHO!Oinoioco«)»OMinHOMiM 

HdoddHNHHHHOHNHHdHOHONNNHOlHHHHOpINHNNNi- 


OHWHOOOOOU}^Ol'rtHOOHi<»OHNO®iltOOI>OtOO®0!0'#ONOOO 

cdtDt'OOtOh-INMNMMMinHHCONWCi3Tti^OOOOOJWO>0)0005^NMM|^OOI)OOON 


•}U0O  j ad  ‘•101'BAi  ui 
eiqnios  *ozyL  ‘qs^god 


0 050 

(NH  (N 


OWOONHHONOO 

HHHHHHHHrltOCO 


O <N 
CO  CO 


•;uao  aad 


•}uaa  aad 
‘aAt^oB  pu«  aiqn 
-los  aa^'BAi. 


00ONOOO|>05O^OCD00t0C<IO00OO05^|>^ 

OT-HT-HT-HrHC^T-HrHrHdoOOr— iT^rHOrHT-HrHOOO 


00000  05X 
OHOOC 


SO  J>  00 

odd 


CO  CO 

d o 


1 00  00 
1 r“? 
! d d 


1 J>  o 
1 d o 


•)uao  aad  ‘oiu'BS 
-jo  aiqniosui 
ja^BAV  aApo'Bui 


CO^H 

odd 


^ T*  1C  LO 

d d d d 


<N  (M 

d d 


1 <M  <M 
l CO  CO 

i d d 


*gu0o  aad  ‘oiireS 
-ao  aiqniosui 
0Aigoy 


X>.  TfH  10  IO 

o d d d 


o 0 

d d 


CO  CO  CO 

d o o 


o cc 

! d d 


•}U0O  aad 
‘diubSjo 
aiqnios  J01T3M 


O CO  lo  co 


O CO 

dodo 


d d 


000 

dod 


•;uaa  aad  ‘s^bs 

BIUOUIUIB  pUB  Sa^BJ^ 

-iu  ui  ajqnjos  ja^B^V 


co  eo  1 

d d o i © © © © 


33 

d o 


£2823 

odd 


o eo 

o d 


i'CD'SU 
laaafl 
1 = 333 
I o o o o 


cs'C'O 
H a a 

« 33  3= 

g,  o o 

-hi 


43  -O 

a a 
33  p 
o o 


>43  43  43 

I a a a 

i =3  =3  3 

) O O O 


■d  od  43  a?  43  a 43  a 43  a -a  43 
riPic1r1c!PirtP<c3PtCa 

§a§§§a§a§a35 

o?ooo?.p  B.o  2,P  o 


bO«tH  bflMH  bfl-HI  « 


$ 

5 

§ 43 
Pi  C3 
03  3 

2o 


■a  1 


g,a  'ON  uopoadsui 


£ £ bo 
oof5 
+->  33 
00  02,10 


I Pi  43 
I =3  fl 
! £3  03 


33  Cl  « Pi 

fflMMOi 


<u  43 

<D  Pi 
Pi  03 


-OPh 


■>#  ift  10  in 
oiHHino 
CO  •*(<  TjH  OJt- 


t-  03 


3 o 

bfl  fall 

a a 1 


a a 
a a 
WW> 


NIOO 
I>030 
00  03  t- 


HOW 


1 TQ  [ j 

! ™ §? 

-aM  — 

; 33 

! 5 1 

sS.  1 

! ^ — 

! a •« 

! 2 

•a 

Morocc 

Ferdin; 

Deputy 

Salem 

CO  0 

! ao 

1 03 

.0^ 

a * 

1 43  P 

1 p ati 

1 0)rH  K 

'PhOW 

i 0 

! a 
- >» 
!S 

0 
j | 

'pH 

CO  {H 
| 03  O 

1-9'S 

1 O 03 

«^W 

I'd 

! S M 

! .3  a 

I'D  to 


« 


'ON  rBpi»o 


eooseoeococorHiHr-it^iHrHt^ooi 
COCOOOCOCOCOCO<MC<IOsaiOlOS©< 
(COCOCO^ 


rUCOCO^OCONNXOOCO  I 


t^J^i>J>SoOOOOOOOOQC 


s 

2 'd 


O a> 

O .+2 
--.233 
£ 33  ft; 


V Q. 

Sa 


Si. 

2 Ph  2 a a 

it^  11  -J  rr< 


5 by 

a. 3 ® 
a 2 
2 A § 


pi  a os  a 

<“■£  ®oj 
m a n h- 1 


Pi.N, 

oj  33 

S3 

bo 


Or 


j5J«dd6^.S6 

a oOPhWMWOOH 

•a  :s  I * * * J* 
> 

.a  Q 


(5j3ft«8 

Q3  CO 

rO  Jh  . w 

3^3 

"o«S 

V* 


qo  Pi  o 

a 


a> 

^ “8  a 

a g » § 

a a a 

ss<' 


• a 0 

Ph  o ^ 

opM 


a 

fl  • • 

Ay 

^ bo  a 4,  « a 

2 

• esOcc  a.P2o 

+»  9 • • § 32  oo 

a Sr'.Pon 


004 
I - 
> 


5lE-'ld°o§S 

Q GO  • (& 

bQao  WPnOafi 

• * 1 * 1 * * 

> > 


111  h 

w a ph 
,— T 22  a -o 
as  42  — a M 
,®  ® p o S a 
rS  apL|  Pi  O 

<j5o^Oh4o 

* J * J * J 

> > > 


o 

O 


03-0 

O Pi 


S-8L-- 
^gaSf 


Pag 


• 2 73  33 
&33(S  O 
-o  a " a 
SOOPi 
* I* 
> 


a ,*  o c t 
Pp^W33  a 
. o a 

o*?o> 


79 


ifcin 
ci  co 
Cl  Cl 


ID  LO  lO  CO 


'NOiOJ 
CO  1-H  CO  Tf  H rH 


OOOrHOCiOlOCDCOLO 

CDOOhOOOOHHHH 


GO  GO  CO 

o © © © 


O co  o 

CO  CO  ^ 


CO  I CO 
© 1 © 


s jfc 

d 1 © 


gos 

d (M 


© © 
t~  I— I 

© l-H 


CO  63 
© © 


-a  I'O 

£ g 


© fc-  © © © t-  t- 


i o © © © 


tJH  rt<  ^ 


S i ■ 


'O  ! 'O 


dTi  o3T3  oS'C  ^ 'd 

3§3o3o?0 
5B<m  tuOM— i tUD*<— i 


did..  1 
c3raro  os'd'd  03^3  cs'O'C'd'a 

osas^dd^d^dddd 

sSo?oo  o?oooo 

tH)«dtd  6uD'+-i  «•— i bfl't-i  ho«(H  <m  q-i  «t-i 


a; 

I :d  bo 

'"E  2 

h-9 


d ! t 

8 ! ‘ 

P*H  I pH  I ,-,  I M 

o 'O  'M  'O 


:s 


:|3  iS-g  :S  il?!i 

d o3  ' d S >o  ®o®^ 
1 0,2  \ a w 5?  id  b0-£,2 

£ 7h  i O Ph  l O i ® E o Ph 

loo  'OO  1 W 'OOWO 


u 'd 

1 1 


“ rt 
2 ft 


X ™ 

O ^ 


£ u 


■g  s 

b £ 


CO  I CO 

s iff 


isss  iff  i§sog 
i££  lg£  !“  !g£2°£ 


t-t-INENCOCO-^HtH 
COCOCOCOCOCOCOCO 
CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  Cl 
OCOCOCOCOCDCOCD 


*-t-r-eoeoeococo©©©©© 

0}05©H<-t,'*t,iLDLOcococococo 

LOLOIDCOCOCILCLOJlOJlDJlOLDJlO 

COCOCOCDCDCOCDCOCDCOCDCDCD 


3 03  r-t 

"gs 

Si3 

ls? 

a : 


ft 

“ 1 ^ 7?  O 'S 
^ ° t- 


_N  rQ 


„ Ph  O H 

- 0®f  © 

d^  d 

^9  a 

Sg«S« 

ro  ^ , t-< 

-£  a>  d-d  3 

SS5-SP5S^  S 

a~<  < dd-s<i 

r «*  fcg*  PH  * S * 

& > £ O a 


ph®  a 

'o  w • 

M.SW 

Ph  . 

• ab 


fr*“® 

« d 
>»  o 
d cq 

03^ 

ft  > 

9 5 

a* 


® 9 hH 

m Pj  2 O 

gflsS 

fe.2g§ 

4a  ft9l<! 
o 3 
33  05 
cj  : 


® I ;&;  1 2.-S 

.■Sa^B®!  :*?a 

*2>qJ<«Oc3P©.9y 

igsassie?!^ 

© a O 


bo 

d k CO 

•ntf  « 

ajt>  c3 
33  . ft 

all 

d d . 
> g £ 
•g£g 
®d  o 

Ph  <D  +h 
EG 

® c3  ® 

ft-?,  a 

9 g £ 

d d d 
CQ  pH  m 


TABLE  VII. — Mechanical  Condition  (Fineness)  of  Rock  Phosphate  Samples 

Secured  in  1917 


LABEL 

Number 

Taken  at 

Total  phos- 
phoric acid, 
P2O6, 
per  cent. 

Passing, 
per  cent.* 

Not  passing 

80  mesh,  per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

BB. 

Guaran- 

teed 

Found 

50  mesh 

80-mesh 

100  mesh 

Buhner,  Ferdinand  F.,  Seymour,  Ind. 

Rock  Phosphate  

5565 

7179 

Seymour 

28.0 

31.1 

98 

87 

83 

13 

Farmers  Ground  Rock  Phosphate  Company, 

Mt.  Pleasant,  Tenn. 

“Farmers  Ground  Phosphate  XXX  Brand” 

4896 

6669 

Morocco  

30.0 

29.6 

99 

81 

80 

19 

Federal  Chemical  Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Daybreak  Ground  Phosphate  Rock.  

5252 

6748- 

Bluffton  

29.7 

29.0 

95 

87 

82 

13 

Daybreak  Ground  Phosphate  Rock.. 

5252 

7503 

Carlisle  

29.7 

30.5 

98 

91 

88 

9 

Daybreak  Tennessee  Brown  Phosphate 

Rock  

6976 

7655 

Dale  

32.0 

32.8 

95 

86 

83 

14 

Daybreak  Tennessee  Brown  Phosphate 

Rock  

6976 

7928 

Royal  Center  ... 

32.0 

33.5 

99 

91 

88 

9 

Mt.  Pleasant  Fertilizer  Company,  Inc., 

Mt.  Pleasant,  Tenn. 

Mt.  Pleasant  Untreated  Phosphate 

4198 

6642 

Mt.  Vernon  __ 

28.0 

31.9 

98 

88 

84 

12 

Mt.  Pleasant  Untreated  Phosphate 

4198 

6670 

Brook  .. 

28.0 

32.7 

95 

81 

75 

19 

Ruhm,  Jr.,  John,  Mt.  Pleasant,  Tenn. 

Ground  Phosphate  Rock 

4480 

6663 

Pine.  Village. 

23.0 

31.4 

100 

98 

98 

2 

Ground  Phosphate  Rock 

4480 

7417 

Laketon  

23.0 

30.8 

98 

94 

90 

6 

* Siftings  made  by  the  dry  method 


8i 


TABLE  VIII. — Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale  in  1918 


Label 

Official  No. 

Guar; 
ers  t 

£ 

c‘  • 

£ u 
£ 0) 

£ a 

o 

Potash,  K20,  soluble  n ® 

in  water,  per  cent.  § ® 

Soluble  and  reverted  E.  ^ 

phosphoric  acid,  3 

Po05,  per  cent.  £ g 

anufa 
t less 

u . 

■£  2 
s® 

x a 

a 5 

CD  O 

!* 

O 

w 

£3 

<-►  a 

Total  phosphoric  g £ 

acid,  P205,  per  cent.  3 

Alphano  Humus  Company,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

Alphano  Humus  

6702 

1.2 

0.5' 

0.5 

0.5 



Prepared  Alphano  Humus  

6928 

1.2 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

— 

American  Agricultural  Chemical  Company,  The,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

Cleveland  Dryer,  XXX  Superphosphate 

2803 





14.0 





Zell’s  Dissolved  Bone  Phosphate 

2809 





14.0 





Bradley’s  Com  & Wheat  Phosphate — - 

2813 

0.8 

1.0 

10.0 





Bradley’s  Niagara  Phosphate _ _ _ 

2817 

0.8 

1.0 

7.0 





Reese,  Half  & Half  

2880 

0.8 

1.0 

7.0 





Reese,  Elm  Phosphate -- 

2881 



14.0 



Nitrate  of  Soda  ... - _ ------ 

4649 

IBTo 









Bradley’s  Soluble  Dissolved  Bone  Phosphate . 

5921 





14.0 





16%  Acid  Phosphate 

5923 

— 

— 

16.0 

i.o 

— 

American  Agricultural  Chemical  Company,  The, 

Bowker  Fertilizer  Works,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 

Bowker’s  Grain  & Grass  Grower _ 

4626 

1.6 

2.0 

8.0 

1.5 

Bowker’s  Fish  Guano  _ _ - _ _ --  . 

4633 

0.8 

3.0 

8.0 

1.5 

Bowker’s  16%  Acid  Phosphate  

5316 

16.0 

Bowker’s  Harvest  Bone  Phosphate _ - 

5764 

’6~8 

To 

8.0 





Bowker’s  Soluble  Phosphate  - _ __ _ _ 

5765 

14.0 

Bowker’s  Special  Wheat  Grower  

6201 

~0~8 

To 

10.0 





Bowker’s  High  Grade  Fertilizer,  1916 _--  

6265 

2.4 

1.0 

10.0 

Bowkers  General  Crop  -_ 

6266 

1.6 

1.0 

10.0 

Bowker’s  Special,  1916  . __  

6267 

2.0 

1.0 

8.0 





Bowker’s  2—12  Ammoniated  Acid  Phosphate 

6269 

1.6 

12.0 

Bowker’s  2—10  Ammoniated  Acid  Phosphate 

6270 

1.6 

10.0 

Bowker’s  1—10  Ammoniated  Acid  Phosphate - _ __ 

6271 

0.8 

10.0 

Bowker’s  No.  1 Raw  Bone — _ 

6723 

3.2 

2oI6 

Bowker’s  Acid  Phosphate  with  Potash  1916 

6729 

To 

12.0 

Bowker’s  Crop  and  Cereal  Grower  

6762 

T6 

1.0 

8.0 

Bowker’s  Harvest  Queen _ _ 

6763 

0.8 

2.0 

8.0 

Bowker’s  Ground  Bone  . 

6765 

1.6 

27To 

Bowkers  Wheat  & Clover  Grower  1916 

6856 

0.8 

To 

12.0 

Bowkar’s  Little  Wonder .. 

7103 

0.4 

10.0 



Bowker’s  Bone  & Phosphate  Mixture - 

7114 

0.8 

— 

20.0 

— 

— 

American  Agricultural  Chemical  Company,  The, 

Detroit  Sales  Department,  Detroit,  Mich. 

North  Western  Horse  Shoe  Brand  Square  Deal  Phosphate 

4430 





14.0 

2.0 



Packers  Boars  Head  Brand  Faultless  Grain  Grower 

4437 

6.8 

1.0 

7.0 

1.0 

Packers  Boars  Head  Brand  Gilt  Edge  Phosphate - 

4442 

14.0 

2.0 

IT 

North  Western  Horse  Shoe  Brand  Raw  Bone 

4533 

3.2 







22.0 

North  Western  Horse  Shoe  Brand  16%  Phosphate 

5931 

16.0 

1.0 

Packers  Boar’s  Head  Brand  Ammoniated  Bone  Phosphate  and  Potash- 

5933 

~0~8 

To 

10.0 

2.0 

IT 

North  Western  Horse  Shoe  Brand  Acidulated  Bone  Phosphate  and 

Potash  

5934 

0.8 

1.0 

10.0 

2.0 

North  Western  Horse  Shoe  Brand  Animal  Bone  Phosphate  Manure 

5935 

0.8 

1.0 

7.0 

1.0 

Amo-Phos  Fertilizer  

6213 

1.6 

12.0 

2.0 

Amo-Phos  & Potash  Fertilizer 

6214 

0.8 

To 

10.0 

2.0 



North  Western  Horse  Shoe  Dissolved  Ammoniated  Bone  Phosphate 

6216 

1.6 



12.0 

2.0 



North  Western  Horse  Shoe  Brand  Potash  Manure  1916 _ 

6325 

0.8 

i.o 

8.0 

1.0 



North  Western  Horse  Shoe  Brand  Corn  and  Wheat  Grower  1916 

6326 

1.6 

1.0 

8.0 

1.0 



North  Western  Horse  Shoe  Brand  F and  F1  Fertilizer 

6330 

0.8 

10.0 

1.0 

Packers  Boar’s  Head  Brand  16%  Phosphate 

6332 





16.0 

1.0 



Packers  Boar’s  Head  Brand  Sure  Growth  Potash  Manure  1916 

6333 

6.8 

i.o 

8.0 

1.0 

Packers  Boar’s  Head  Brand  Corn  and  Wheat  Grower  1916 

6335 

1.6 

1.0 

8.0 

1.0 

Packers  Boar’s  Head  Brand  New  Compound  

6337 

0.8 

10.0 

1.0 

Cleveland  Dryer  Potato  and  General  Crop  Fertilizer  1916 

6346 

0.8 

To 

8.0 

1.0 

Cleveland  Dryer  Ohio  Seed  Maker  with  Potash  1916 

6347 

1.6 

1.0 

8.0 

1.0 

Zell’s  Economizer  1916  

6349 

0.8 

1.0 

8.0 

1.0 

Zell’s  Ammoniated  Bone  Superphosphate  1916 

6350 

1.6 

1.0 

8.0 

1.0 

Bradley’s  16%  Acid  Phosphate 

6352 

16.0 

1.0 

Bradley’s  Dissolved  Bone  Phosphate  with  Potash  1916 

6354 

"6’8 

To 

8.0 

1.0 

Bradley’s  Potato  and  Root  Fertilizer  1916 . . . _ 

6355 

0.8 

1.0 

8.0 

1.0 

— 

82 


TABLE  VIII. — Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale  in  1918  (continued) 


1 

1 

Guaranteed  by  manufactur- 
ers to  contain  not  less  than 

3 . 

II 

'd 

CD 

tra 

O . 

! g 

a° 

d 

Label 

o 

£ 

[3 

o 

£ 

o 

£ 

C*  • 

bog 

£ ° 

+->  ti 

£ a 

CG  O 

o & 

ii 

£.5 

> . 
f O t: 

£ g 

'd  o o 

*!  g 

® & a 

3 ft  - 
*4  to  J? 
S o O 
o .d 
m aCU 

o ® 

.d  n 
£ 

<D  O 

O rtf 

U1  •-« 

a® 

Jo 

a^ 

d rQ 

° o 
p!  cj 

American  Agricultural  Chemical  Company,  The, 

Detroit  Sales  Department,  Detroit,  Mich. 

Reese  Challenge  Phosphate  1916 

6359 

0.8 

1.0 

8.0 

1.0 

Reese  Complete  Fertilizer  __ 

6360 

0.8 

1.0 

10.0 

1.0 

Reese  Corn  and  Wheat  Grower  _ 

6361 

1.6 

1.0 

8.0 

1.0' 

New  York  State  Special  1916  ■ 

6363 

0.8 

1.0 

8.0 

1.0 

1 and  10  Compound  

6364 

0.8 

10.0 

1.0 

Cleveland  Dryer  Works  Phospho  Potash  Fertilizer 

6697 

0.8 

1.0 

10.0 

1.0 

Reese  Crown  Phosphate  and  Potash  1916 

6724 

1.0 

12.0 

1.0 

Crown  Phosphate  and  Potash  _ 

6735 

1.0 

12.0 

1.0 

North  Western  Horse  Shoe  Brand  XXX  Fertilizer  

6766 

1.0 

12.0 

1.0 

North  Western  Horse  Shoe  Brand  2 Potash  Fertilizer  

6767 

Ts 

2.0 

8.0 

1.0 

Packers  Boars  Head  Brand  Phospotash  Fertilizer 

6769 

1.0 

12.0 

1.0 

Packers  Boars  Head  Rra.nd  New  Compound  and  Potash  Fertilizer 

6770 

T§ 

2.0 

8.0 

1.0 

Packers  Boars  Head  Brand  Success  Fertilizer 

6772 

1.6 

12.0 

1.0 

Favorite  Potash  Fertilizer 

6773 

0.8 

To 

8.0 

1.0 

Fine  Ground  Bone  _ 

6796 

1.6 

27.0 

Packers  Boar’s  Head  Brand  Ground  Bone  

6797 

1.6 

27.0 

North  Western  Horse  Shoe  Brand  Ground  Bone  . ... 

North  Western  Horse  Shoe  Brand  Corn  and  Wheat  Grower  1918..  

6798 

7013 

1.6 

1.6 

8.6 

1.0 

27.0 

North  Western  Horse  Shoe  Brand  Garden  City  Superphosphate  with 
Potash 

7014 

1.6 

1.0 

8.0 

1.0 

Packers  Boars  Head  Brand  World  of  Good  Superphosphate  with 

Potash  ... 

7015 

1.6 

1.0 

8.0 

1.0 

Packers  Boars  Head  Brand  Corn  and  Wheat  Grower  1918 

7016 

1.6 

8.0 

1.0 

Cleveland  Dryer  Works  Ohio  Seed  Maker  1918  . 

7019 

1.6 

8.0 

1.0 

Bradleys  B D Sea  Fowl  Guano  with  Potash  

7020 

1.6 

’To 

8.0 

1.0 

Bradleys  B D Sea  Fowl  Guano  1918 

7021 

1.6 

8.0 

1.0 

Zells  Ammoniated  Bone  Superphosphate  1918i 

7022 

1.6 

8.0 

1.0 

American  Agricultural  Chemical  Company,  The, 

Empire  Carbon  Works,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 

Empire  16%  Acid  Phosphate 

7128 

16.0 

American  Agricultural  Chemical  Company,  The, 

Great  Eastern  Fertilizer  Branch,  Rutland,  Yt. 

Great  Eastern  Dissolved  Acid  Phosphate  ... 

4671 

14.0 

1.5 

Great  Eastern  Special  Crop  Fertilizer  1916  _ _. 

6536 

0~8 

1.0 

10.0 

1.0 

Great  Eastern  General  1916  _.  ..  ...  _ 

6537 

0.8 

1.0 

8.0 

1.0 

Great  Eastern  Wheat  Special  1916  ._ 

6588 

1.6 

1.0 

8.0 

1.0 

Great  Eastern  Vegetable,  Vine  & Tobacco  Fertilizer  1916..  _ 

6539 

2.0 

1.0 

8.0 

1.0 

American  Agricultural  Chemical  Company,  The, 

Michigan  Carbon  Works,  Detroit,  Mich. 

Red  Line  Complete  Manure  . 

4411 

0.8 

1.0 

7.0 

1.0 

Red  Line  Phosphate  

4413 

14.0 

2.0 

Michigan  Carbon  Works  Superior  Acid  Phosphate 

5939 

16.0 

1.0 

Michigan  Carbon  Works  Triaton  Fertilizer 

6218 

T6 

12.0 

2.0 

A-l  Potash  Fertilizer  1916  __  ... 

6340 

0.8 

To 

8.0 

1.0 

Homestead  Bialode  Fertilizer 

6341 

0.8 

1.0 

10.0 

1.0 

Red  Line  Crop  Grower  1916  

6342 

1.6 

1.0 

8.0 

1.0 

New  Standard  Fertilizer 

6344 

0.8 

10.0 

1.0 

Usemore  Fertilizer  __  ...  _ 

6775 

"116 

12.0 

1.0 

Homestead  Special  Potash  Fertilizer 

6776 

Ts 

2.0 

8.0 

1.0 

Homestead  Ground  Bone  _ _.  

6795 

1.6 

27~0 

Homestead  Bone  Blaek  Fertilizer  with  Potash 

7017 

1.6 

"176 

To 

To 

Homestead  Bone  Black  Fertilizer  1918  __  

7018 

1.6 

8.0 

1.0 

American  Agricultural  Chemical  Company,  The, 

M.  E.  Wheeler  & Co.,  Branch,  Rutland,  Vt. 

Wheeler’s  Peerless  Acid  Phosphate 

4668 

14.0 

1.5 

Wheeler’s  High  Grade  Arid  Phosphate 

6127 

16.0 

Wheeler’s  Royal  Wheat  Grower  1916  

6540 

6.8 

To 

8.0 

To 

Wheeler’s  Com  Fertilizer  1916 

6541 

1.6 

1.0 

10.0 

1.0 

Wheeler’s  Potato  Manure  1916  

6542 

2.0 

1.0 

8.0 

1.0 

A.  A.  C.  Co.  Ammoniated  Fertilizer  A 

6616 

0.8 

10.0 

1.0 

— 

83 

TABLE  VIII. — Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale  in  1918  (continued) 


Label 


American  Agricultural  Chemical  Company,  The, 

M.  E.  Wheeler  & Co.,  Branch,  Rutland,  Vt. 

A.  A.  C.  Co.  Ammoniated  Fertilizer  AA  

A.  A.  C.  Co.  Ammoniated  Fertilizer  AAA  

American  Agricultural  Chemical  Company,  The, 

Western  Union  Chemical  Co.,  Branch,  Cleveland,  Ohio 

1916 — Herrick’s  Fertilizer  with  Potash  

1916— Corn  & Wheat  Grower 

W.  U.  Complete  Fertilizer 

Ammoniated  Phosphate  

One  and  Ten  Phosphate :. 

16%  Acid  Phosphate 

Tiger  Bone  Meal  

W.  U.  Ohio  Special 

American  Basic  Phosphate  Company,  The,  Leatherwood,  Tenn. 
Slater’s  Slag  

Armour  Fertilizer  Works,  The,  Chicago,  111. 

Star  Phosphate  

Grain  Grower  

Wheat  Corn  and  Oat  Special : 

Armour’s  Steamed  Bone  

Cereal  Phosphate  

Nitrate  of  Soda  

Armours  Standard  

Dried  Blood  

U.  S.  Phosphate  

Armour’s  Bone  Meal  

16%  Acid  Phosphate 

Armour’s  1—9 — 1 Fertilizer  

Armour’s  1—12—1  Fertilizer  

Armour’s  1 — 14 — 2 Fertilizer  

Armour’s  12—2  Fertilizer  j 

Armour’s  18%  Phosphate  

Armour’s  Special  Grain  Grower 

Armour’s  1—10—1  Fertilizer  

Armour’s  Special  Wheat,  Corn  & Oats 

Armour’s  Ammoniated  Phosphate  No.  3 

Armour’s  Ammoniated  Phosphate  No.  2 

Armour’s  High  Grade  Ammoniated  Phosphate  

Armour’s  3—8—1  Fertilizer  

Armour’s  Potash  & Phosphate  Special 

Special  Ammoniated  Phosphate  No.  1 

Armour’s  1—14—1  Fertilizer  

Armour’s  1—14  Fertilizer  

Armour’s  2—10—1  Fertilizer  

Armour’s  1—8 — 5 Fertilizer  

Armour’s  1—8—6  Fertilizer  

A.  B.  Norris’  Indiana  Wheat  Special 

Indiana  Special  

Sheep  Manure  

A.  B.  Norris’  Indiana  Corn  Special  No.  2 

A.  B.  Norris’  Special  Corn  Fertilizer  

Ballard  Packing  Company,  Marion,  Ind. 

Ballard’s  Animal  Tankage  Fertilizer 

Bausback  & Sons,  Robert,  Shelbyville,  Ind. 

Soft  Bone  

Buhner  Fertilizer  Company,  Seymour,  Ind. 

Raw  Ground  Bone 

Rock  Phosphate  

Half  Bone  & Phosphate 


Guaranteed  by  manufactur- 
ers to  contain  not  less  than 


Official  No. 

Nitrogen,  N, 

per  cent. 

Potash,  K20,  soluble 

in  water,  per  cent. 

Soluble  and  reverted 

phosphoric  acid, 

PnO*,  per  cent. 

Insoluble  phosphoric 

acid,  P<.06,  per  cent. 

Total  phosphoric 

acid,  P206,  per  cent. 

6617 

1.6 

10.0 

1.0 

6619 

2.4 

— 

10.0 

1.0 

— 

6652 

1.6 

1.0 

10.0 

0.5 

6653 

0.8 

1.0 

8.0 

0.5 



6654 

1.6 

1.0 

8.0 

0.5 



6655 

1.6 



12.0 

0.5 



6656 

0.8 



10.0 

0.5 



6657 





16.0 

0.5 



6658 

2.4 







30.6 

6917 

i.o 

12.0 

6.5 

7010 

— - 

— - 

18.0 

2908 

14.0 

2.0 

2910 

~L6 

2~0 

8.0 

2.0 

2938 

0.8 

1.0 

7.0 

2.0 

3331 

1.6 







20^6 

3360 





10.0 

2.0 

3478 

15.6 



3510 

0.8 

3.6 

~§76 

2.6 

3791 

13.2 







4057 





12.6 



4860 

1.6 







27.6 

5295 





16.0 

6.5 



6035 

0.8 

1.0 

9.0 

0.5 

6037 

0.8 

1.0 

12.0 

0.5 

6038 

0.8 

2.0 

14.0 

0.5 



6040 



2.0 

12.0 

0.5 

6041 





18.0 

0.5 



6477 

1.6 

1.0 

8.0 

0.5 



6478 

0.8 

1.0 

10.0 

0.5 



6479 

0.8 

1.0 

8.0 

0.5 

6480 

2.4 



10.0 

0.5 



6481 

1.6 



10.0 

0.5 



6592 

1.6 



12.0 

0.5 



6593 

2.4 

i.o 

8.0 

0.5 



6712 

1-0 

10.0 

0.5 

6732 

~6"8 

12.0 

0.5 

6750 

0.8 

lTo 

14.0 

0.5 



6831 

0.8 

14.0 

0.5 

6832 

1.6 

i7o 

10.0 

0.5 

6912 

0.8 

5.0 

8.0 

0.5 

6921 

0.8 

6.0 

8.0 

0.5 

6985 

0.4 



12.0 

0.5 



7110 

0.4 

10.0 

0.5 

7124 

1.6 

"i.2 

276 

7129 

0.8 



i67o 

675 

7133 

1.2 

— 

10.0 

0.5 

— 

5600 

5.0 

— 

14.0 

3007 

3.5 

— - 

— - 

____ 

14.0 

4171 

3.2 

20.0 

5565 





28.0 

5734 

i.6 

— 

io76  1 

~6io 

— 

84 


TABLE  VIII. — Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale  in  1918  (continued) 


Label 

Official  No. 

Guaranteed  by  manufactur- 
ers to  contain  not  less  than 

c*  • 

41  a 

bog 

£ ° 

£ Vi 
£ ® 

£ ft 

G 

3 . 

| a 

O <D 
«2  O 

o g 

sg 

£.5 

'O 

> ^ 
®«tj 

III 

^ o ® 

® .c  ft 
3 ft 

- B Jf 

' oO 
° A 
m ftCu 

"C  £ 
o c 
•£  u 
ft  * 

« a 
o ® 

& a 
ft  5 

® o 
1* 
83 

+■> 

a 

is 

f * 
20 
■5 

ftfc 

^ 'o 
o® 

Eh  a 

Buhner  Fertilizer  Company,  Seymour,  Ind. 

| 

Grain  Booster  

5747 

0.8 

10.0 

1.0 

Acid  Phosphate  _ 

6075 

14.0 

W.  T.  Crop  Grower  

6525 

’id) 

"67i 

8.0 

i.o 

W.  T.  Truck  Grower  __  

6526 

2.4 

0.5 

8.0 

2.0 

W.  T.  Grain  Producer  _ 

6527 

0.8 

1.0 

8.0 

1.0 

W.  T.  Grain  Grower  

6528 

1.6 

0.2 

8.0 

2.0 

16%  Acid  Phosphate  . 

6696 

16.0 

Ground  Bone  _ 

6742 

2.4 

24.0 

Ammoniated  Bono  Phosphate 

6994 

2^0 

"676 

Ii76 

Central  Phosphate  Company,  Mt.  Pleasant,  Tenn. 

Tennessee  Phosphate  Rock  _______ 

5040 

28.0 

Tennessee  Phosphate 

5261 

32.0 

Chicago  Feed  & Fertilizer  Company,  Chicago,  111. 

Magic  Blood  & Bone 

6584 

4.9 

13.7 

Magic  Tankage  Fertilizer  __  

6585 

2.4 

0.5 

1.5 

Magic  Pulverized  Sheep  Manure _ 

6586 

1.6 

i!o 

i!o 

Magic  3 — 22  Steamed  Bone  Meal  

6587 

2.4 

22.0 

6588 

3.2 

1.0 

6.0 

Magic  4 — 3 — 1 

6589 

3!2 

1.0 

3!o 

Magic  Manure  Ash  Potash ___ 

6706 

4.0 

2.0 

Magic  Acid  Phosphate  

6930 

1676 

"176 

Magic  Brand  Manure  Ash  Potash 

7146 

"676 

‘276 

Chicago  Raw  Products  Company,  Chicago,  111. 

Consumers  Special  14%  Acid  Phosphate 

5012 

14.0 

1.0 



Consumers  Special  Raw  Bone  Meal 

5013 

3.7 





20.0 

Consumers  Special  3 — 22  Bone  Meal 

5070 

2.4 

22.8 

Consumers  Special  1 — 29  Pure  Bone  Meal _ _ 

5072 

o!s 

29.7 

Consumers  Special  Ammoniated  Extra  Bone  Meal  _ 

5681 

2.0 

28.0 

Consumers  Brand  Steamed  Bone  Meal  — 

6387 

0.8 

24.0 

Consumers  Brand  Bone  & Phosphate  Mixture 

6388 

0.4 

1676 

"676 



Consumers  Brand  16%  Acid  Phosphate  

6389 

16.0 

1.0 

Consumers  Brand  15%  Acid  Phosphate 

6390 

15.0 

1.0 

Consumers  Brand  Ammoniated  Phosphate 

6393 

"176 

10.0 

1.0 



Consumers  Hummer  Grain  Grower  _.  _„ 

6827 

0.8 

"675 

10.0 

1.0 



Consumers  Ammoniated  Bone  Phosphate ___  

6828 

0.6 

15.0 

1.0 



Consumers  Corn  & Wheat  Special _ _ 

7037 

0.8 

12.0 

1.0 



Consumers  Onion  & Truck  Grower __  

7038 

0.4 

"§76 

8.0 

1.0 



Consumers  Otto  Voyles  Special 

7039 

0.6 

8.0 

1.0 

Consumers  rinrn  ^ Tnhaeerv  Grower 

7040 

0.8 

10.0 

1.0 

Consumers  Special  Crop  Grower 

7041 

0^4 

12.0 

1.0 

Otto  Voyles  Special  with  Potash  

7111 

0.6 

~oTB 

8.5 

1.0 

— 

Cincinnati  Phosphate  Company,  The,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 

Ga.pit.al  Oity  Wheat  Grower 

2886 

14.0 

1.0 

Patrons  High  Grade  Phosphate 

3626 

IIII 

IIII 

16.0 

1.0 



“Bonus”  A Phosphate  with  Humus 

3903 

0.4 

__ 

12.0 

1.0 



“A”  Grain  and  Grass  Grower 

4301 

0.8 

2.0 

8.0 

1.0 

A.  Conservation  Brand  

5829 

0.8 

1.0 

12.0 

1.0 

Z 

Grain  & Grass  Grower 

5830 

0.8 

1.0 

9.0 

1.0 



Ammoniated  Super  Phosphate 

6292 

1.6 

12.0 

1.0 

High  Grade  Manure 

6293 

1.2 

"176 

9.0 

1.0 



“A.”  Tobacco  Potatoe  & Beet  Grower 

6294 

1.6 

1.0 

8.0 

1.0 



Revised  Indiana  Black  Soil  Special 

6582 

0.4 

3.0 

6.0 

1.0 



Revised  Black  Soil  Special 

6583 

0.4 

2.0 

6.0 

1.0 



Favorite  Grain  Grower _ 

6622 

0.8 



10.0 

1.0 



A Ground  Bone 

6754 

1.6 





27.0 

C-Bone  & Phosphate  Mixture  Wheat.  Special 

6755 

1.6 

8.0 

8.0 

Capitol  Crop  Booster 

6758 

0.4 

"176 

10.0 

1.0 



Capitol  Tobacco  Potato  & Beet  Grower 

7046 

0.8 

2.0 

8.0 

1.0 

— 

Clendenin  Fertilizer  Company,  Richmond,  Ind. 

Acid  Phosphate  Special  

4839 





14.0 

— 

— 

Wheat  Grower  — 

6117 

0.8 

1.0 

10.0 

— 

— 

85 

TABLE  VIII.— Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale  in  1918  (continued) 


Label 

Official  No. 

Guaranteed  by  manufactur- 
ers to  contain  not  less  than 

Nitrogen,  N, 

per  cent. 

Potash,  K20,  soluble 

in  water,  per  cent. 

Soluble  and  reverted 

phosphoric  acid, 

P205,  per  cent. 

Insoluble  phosphoric 

acid,  P205,  per  cent. 

Total  phosphoric 
acid,  P205,  per  cent. 

Clendenin  Fertilizer  Company,  Richmond,  Ind. 

Corn  Grower  — 

6607 

1.6 

10.0 



Tankage  and  Phosphate  

6608 

0.8 



11.0 



Acid  Phosphate  

6609 



16.0 



Phosphate  and  Bone  

6610 

1.8 

12.0 

176 

— 

Cleveland  Provision  Company,  The,  Cleveland,  Ohio 

Premium  Bone  Meal . - 

G898 

0.6 

— 

25.0 

Darling  & Company,  Chicago,  111. 

Darling’s  Ground  Raw  Bone - - 

2843 

3.3 







21.0 

4184 

14.8 

Darling’s  “A”  Pure  Ground  Bone _ 

5120 

1.8 

7777 

7777 

7777 

2876 

Darling’s  Sheep  Manure  __  - 

6258 

2.0 

1.0 





1.0 

Darling’s  16%  Acid  Phosphate 

6372 





16.0 





Darling’s  Grain  Grower  --  - 

6373 

0.8 

1.0 

9.0 

2.0 



Darling’s  Big  Harvest  

6374 

1.6 

1.0 

12.0 

2.0 



Darling’s  Farmers’  Favorite  --  -- 

6375 

2.4 

1.0 

8.0 

2.0 



Darling’s  Sure  Winner  

6377 

0.8 

0.5 

10.0 

2.0 



Darling’s  Blood  & Bone  

6620 

4.9 





_ __ 

12.0 

Darling’s  General  Crop  - 

6778 

1.6 



12.0 

2.0 



Darling’s  Little  Giant  Brand  _ — — 

6812 

0.8 

10.0 

2.0 



Darling’s  One— Eight— Two  Brand  

6813 

0.8 

2.0 

8.0 

2.0 



Darling’s  Half  and  Half  

6901 

0.8 

— 

10.0 

13.0 

— 

D.  & K.  Fertilizer  Company,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

D and  K.  Bone  Phosphate 

3030 



1.1 

10.0 

1.0 

Pure  Ground  Bone  

3363 

1.6 



_ 

£676 

Quick  Acting  Corn  Grower 

3402 

0.8 

1.5 

176 

0.5 



D.  & K.  Nitrate  of  Soda 

4979 

14.0 







D and  K 14%  Acid  Phosphate 

5483 



14.6 





D & K Garden  Special  - -- 

5757 

1.6 

1.6 

10.0 





D & K Early  Maturity  

5759 

1.6 

2.0 

8.0 

_1 



Ammoniated  Mixture  

5769 

1.6 



12.0 





Dissolved  Bone  Phosphate  with  Potash 

6062 

0.8 

i.i 

7.0 

1.0 



D & K Special  Wheat  & Clover 

6200 

0.8 

1.0 

9.0 

- 



Available  Plant  Food  — — 

6226 

1.2 

10.0 





D & K Corn  King  

6260 

0.8 

6.5 

12.0 





D & K Special  Spring  Fertilizer 

6261 

0.4 

0.5 

13.0 





D & K V2— 8— 3 ..  . . ... 

6615 

0.4 

3.0 

8.0 

D & K Special  Wheat  Fertilizer 

6689 

0.8 

0.5 

12.0 

D & K Special  Fall  Fertilizer  

6690 

0.4 

0.5 

13.0 

Special  Wheat  Grower  _ ... _ 

6969 

0.8 



10.0 

i.o 

7777 

Tankage  and  Phosphate  Special 

6986 

0.4 



12.0 

0.5 



Ammoniated  Phosphate 

7135 

0.4 

_ 

10.0 



Wheat  & Clover 

7144 

0.5 

6.5 

11.0 

— 

— 

Dryfus  Packing  & Provision  Company,  LaFayette,  Ind. 

Dryfus  Star  Fertilizer  ...  

5460 

5.0 

— 

— 

10.0 

Eckart  Packing  Company,  Fred,  Ft.  Wayne,  Ind. 

Eckart’s  Fertilizer  . 

4572 

3.6 

— 

— 

— 

12.8 

Empire  Carbon  Works,  Subsidiary  of  The  American  Agricultural 

Chemical  Company,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 

Empire  14%  Acid  Phosphate  

6814 



14.0 





Empire  16%  Acid  Phosphate  

6815 

16.0 



Empire  1—10  Ammoniated  Acid  Phosphate  .. 

6816 

'67s 



10.0 





Empire  2—10  Ammoniated  Acid  Phosphate  ._ 

6817 

1.6 



10.0 





Empire  2—12  Ammoniated  Acid  Phosphate  

6818 

1.6 

12.0 

Empire  Acid  Phosphate  with  Potash  1916 

6819 

"£76 

12.0 



Empire  Full  Harvest  

6820 

’67§ 

1.0 

8.0 

Empire  Wheat  & Clover  Fertilizer 

6821 

0.8 

2.0 

8.0 

Empire  Grain  & Grass  Grower 

6822 

1.6 

2.0 

8.0 

Empire  Bone  Black  Fertilizer  1916  

6823 

2.0 

1.0 

8.0 

Empire  Farmers  Favorite  . ...  

6824 

0.8 

1.0 

10.0 

Empire  High  Grade  Fertilizer  1916 

6825 

2.4 

1.0 

10.0 

— 

— 

86 


TABLE  VIII. — Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale  in  1918  (continued) 


Label 


Guaranteed  by  manufactur- 
ers to  contain  not  less  than 


Empire  Carbon  Works,  Subsidiary  of  The  American  Agricultural 
Chemical  Company,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 

Empire  Ground  Bone  

Empire  Little  Wonder 

Empire  Guano  Company,  The,  New  Albany  Sales  Department, 
New  Albany,  Ind. 

Empire  High  Grade  Acid  Phosphate 

Empire  Climax  Acid  Phosphate . 

Empire  Pure  Raw  Bone  

Raw  Rock  Phosphate  

Nitrate  of  Soda  

Good  Enough  No.  1 

Red  Banner  Special  No.  1 

Indiana  Special  No.  2 

Empire  Pure  Steamed  Bone 

Hoosier  Special  _ — 

Half  & Half  No.  1 

Tankage  & Phosphate  Special 

Favorite  : 

Red  Banner  Special  No.  2 

Ammoniated  Potash  & Phosphate  No.  1 

Truck  Grower  No.  1' 

Blood  Bone  & Phosphate  No.  1 

Half-Seven-Three  

Empire  Half-Ten-Five  

Empire  Five-Five  

Indiana  Special  No.  2 Fertilizer 

Wedeking’s  Hummer  Grain  Grower 

Wedeking’s  General  Crop  

Empire  2 & 26  Steamed  Bone 

Hoosier  Brand  

Tomato  & Tobacco  Grower 

Evansville  Packing  Company,  Evansville,  Ind. 

Harvest  King  

Pure  Raw  Bone  Meal 

Corn  & Wheat  Special 

High  Grade  Soluble  Phosphate 

Bone  Phosphate  & Potash 

Three  B.  

“Farmers  Pride”  

Revised  Half  and  Half 

Wonder  Growth  

“Leader”  

Everitt’s  Seed  Store,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Magic  Corn,  Oats  and  Wheat  Grower  (Ev-Er-It  Brand) 

Magic  Garden  and  Truck  Grower  (Ev-Er-It  Brand)  

Ev-Er-It  Brand  Humus  

Ev-Er-It  Brand  Sheep  Manure  

Ewing,  Geo.  M.,  Greensburg,  Ind. 

Ewing’s  Phosphate  & Potash  

Ewing’s  Best  Phosphate  & Potash 

Ewing’s  Acid  Phosphate  

Ewing’s  Complete  Fertilizer  

Ewing’s  14%  Acid  Phosphate  

Ewing’s  Grain  King  

Farmers  Fertilizer  Company,  The,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Farmers  Wheat  & Oats  Special 

Our  Universal  Phosphate  

Corn  & Wheat  Grower 

Our  German  Phosphate  

Our  Half  & Half  


Official  No. 

Nitrogen,  N, 

per  cent. 

Potash,  K20,  soluble 

in  water,  per  cent. 

Soluble  and  reverted 

phosphoric  acid, 

PoO*.  per  cent. 

Insoluble  phosphoric 

acid,  P206,  per  cent. 

Total  phosphoric 

acid,  P206,  per  cent. 

6826 

1.6 

27.0 

7102 

0.4 

— 

ioio 

— 

— 

3307 

14.0 

2.0 

3514 





16.0 

1.0 

4593 

3.5 







2L5 

5125 

30.0 

5127 

15.0 



__ 





5774 

0.8 

i.o 

12.0 

1.6 

5787 

0.8 

2.0 

10.0 

1.0 

6209 

0.3 

1.0 

15.0 

1.0 

6231 

0.8 





2976 

6318 

0.4 

6.5 

8.6 

i.o 



6319 

1.6 

1.0 

6.0 

6.0 



6320 

0.8 



12.0 

1.0 

6321 

1.6 



12.0 

1.0 



6322 

0.8 

i.o 

9.0 

1.0 

6323 

0.4 

1.0 

10.0 

1.0 



6483 

0.6 

2.5 

7.0 

1.0 

6703 

1.6 

1.0 

8.0 

1.0 

6722 

0.4 

3.0 

7.0 

6910 

0.4 

5.0 

10.0 

To 

6911 



5.0 

5.0 

1.0 

6967 

6.3 

1.0 

14.0 

1.0 

6982 

0.4 



12.0 

1.0 

6983 

0.8 

12.0 

1.0 

6988 

1.6 







26  i6 

7101 

0.4 



io.o 

i.o 



7138 

0.4 

I.o 

10.0 

1.0 

— 

4886 

1.0 

2.0 

8.0 

1.0 

4891 

3.7 



23.0 

5359 

0.8 

§76 

5.0 

To 



5360 



16.0 

2.0 

6057 

6.8 

i.o 

7.0 

2.0 



6058 

1.6 

2.0 

8.0 

2.0 



6247 

0.8 

1.0 

12.0 

2.0 



6545 

2.5 

1.0 

10.0 

2.0 



6546 

1.6 



10.0 

2.0 



6734 

2.4 

1.0 

9.0 

2.0 

— 

7139 

14.0 

7140 

"2:6 

To 

8.0 



7141 

1.2 

0.5 

”676 

7142 

2.0 

1.2 

— 

1.5 

3324 

2.0 

10.0 

3325 



2.0 

12.0 





3326 





10.0 





3619 

6.8 

i.o 

7.0 





3733 





14.0 





4706 

1.6 

2.0 

8.0 

'6.5 

— 

3199 

14.0 

3555 

T§ 

To 

7.0 

To 



3556 

0.8 

2.0 

8.0 

1.0 



3557 

0.8 

3.0 

8.0 

1.0 



4817 

1.2 

— 

8.0 

11.0 

— 

87 

TABLE  VIII. — Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale  in  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  manufactur- 
ers to  contain  not  less  than 


Label 


farmers  Fertilizer  Company,  The,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Grain  Manure  

16%  Acid  Phosphate 

Superphosphated  Manure  

Plant  Food  

Black  Soil  Formula  

Soil  Food  

Corn  & Wheat  Grower  without  Potash 

Nitro  Phosphate  

federal  Chemical  Company,  Inc.,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Daybreak  Standard  Phosphate  

Daybreak  Star  Phosphate  

Daybreak  Royal  Phosphate 

Daybreak  Fine  Raw  Bone 

“A”  Daybreak  Wheat  & Com  Special 

Daybreak  Special  Manure  

Ground  Tobacco  Stems 

Nitrate  of  Soda 

A.  1 Daybreak  Raw  Bone  

Daybreak  High  Grade  Acid  Phosphate : 

Daybreak  Ground  Phosphate  Rock 

Half  & Half  Phosphate  Mixture 

Pure  Bone  

Extra  High  Grade  Phosphate 

Daybreak  Royal  Wheat  & Grain  Special 

Sand  Land  Special 

Daybreak  Nitro-Phosphate  

Daybreak  Cracker- Jack  

Daybreak  Harvest  Home  

Daybreak  Half  & Half  Meal  Mixture 

Standard  Crop  & Tobacco  Fertilizer 

A-l  Formula  1916  

High  Grade  Fertilizer 

Special  Potato  Fertilizer  

Potato  Grower  

Red  Rooster  Mixture  

A-l  Fertilizer  1916 

A-l  Corn  & Wheat  Fertilizer  

Potato  & Tobacco  Fertilizer 

Tobacco,  Truck  & Tomato  Fertilizer  1916 

Special  Truck  & Tomato  Fertilizer 

High  Grade  Special 

A-l  Special  

Standard  Grain  Grower  

Standard  Corn  & Wheat  Fertilizer 

Daybreak  Special  Manure  1916  

Daybreak  Grain  Grower  1916 

Daybreak  A-l  Champion  

Daybreak  Corn,  Wheat  & Clover  Grower 

1st  Prize  Phosphate  

A— 1st  Prize  Tobacco  Mixture 

1st  Prize  Ammoniated  Meal  Mixture  

1st  Prize  Corn  & Wheat  Champion 

1st  Prize  Corn,  Wheat  & Oats  Grower 

1st  Prize  Grain  Maker  

1st  Prize  Wheat  & Grain  Special 

1st  Prize  Corn  & Wheat  Fertilizer 

1st  Prize  Clay  Land  Soil  Builder 

1st  Prize  Phosphate  Mixture  

1st  Prize  Ammoniated  Bone  Phosphate  

1st  Prize  Standard  Phosphate  

1st  Prize  A A.  Phosphate 

1st  Prize  Fine  Raw  Bone  ___ 

1st  Prize  Raw  Bone  

Blue  Ribbon  Meal  Mixture  


O <5 


0)  o •*-' 

£ * Si 

c H u 

*1  d 

0)  J3  ft 

3 a - 


2 S 

a 2 

o £ 
Si  a 

a s 

<x>  O 


a 

3% 

2 ® 
afi 

W 10 
20 
•5  ci 


£ 

0 

->->  u 

i V.  a 

(£.5 

H#  “ 

i oO 
\m  a Du 

, Insol 
acid. 

| o 

1 E-I  ci 

5808 

0.8 

1.0 

9.0 

6188 



16.0 



6237 

i.o 



10.0 

i.o 

6272 

0.8 

i.o 

12.0 





6273 

0.4 

3.0 

5.0 





6274 

0.8 

0.5 

8.0 

6276 

0.8 



8.0 



7023 

0.4 

10.0 

3923 

12.0 

3924 





10.0 

3925 

_ 

14.0 

4088 

2.4 







2L0 

4143 

0.4 

1.0 

li.o 



4271 

0.8 

2.0 

10.0 



4754 

2.0 

9.0 







4997 

15.0 









5002 

3.7 



22.6 

5016 



i6io 





5252 









29.7 

5435 





10.0 

12.0 

5657 

1.0 

30.6 

5742 





iiTo 

5766 

6.8 

i.o 

12.0 

5857 

1.2 

0.5 

12.5 

5858 

0.4 



15.0 





5866 

0.4 

i.o 

13.0 



5868 

2.4 



10.0 

5869 

1.6 



10.0 

ioio 



6416 

1.2 



10.0 

6417 

1.6 



10.0 



6418 

1.6 



12.0 



6419 

2.4 

i.o 

9.0 

6420 

3.2 

1.0 

8.0 





6421 

0.4 



12.0 





6422 

0.8 



12.0 



6423 

0.8 



14.0 





6424 

2.0 

1.0 

10.0 

6425 

1.6 

1.0 

9.0 





6426 

1.6 

0.5 

11.5 



6427 

0.8 

1.0 

14.0 





6428 

0.4 

0.5 

15.0 



6429 

0.8 

1.0 

10.0 

6430 

1.2 

0.5 

10.0 





6431 

1.0 

0.5 

10.0 





6432 

0.4 

0.5 

9.0 



6433 

0.4 

0.5 

11.5 



6434 

0.8 

1.0 

9.0 





6435 





14.0 

6436 

6.4 

6.5 

9.0 





6437 

2.4 

10.0 





6438 

0.4 

0.5 

11.5 





6439 

0.4 

1-0 

11.0 



6440 

0.4 

1.0 

13.0 





6441 

0.8 

1.0 

12.0 



6442 

1.0 

0.5 

10.0 





6443 

1.2 

0.5 

12.5 





6444 

0.4 



12.0 





6445 

0.4 



15.0 

1 



6446 





12.0 





6447 

_ __ 



10.0 





6448 

2.4 







24.0 

6449 

3.7 







22.0 

6450 

1.6 

■ 

io.o 

io.o 



88 


TABLE  VIII. — Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale  in  1918  (continued) 


Label 

Official  No. 

Guar 
ers  t 

z 

a j 

Mg 

2 « 

r*  a> 
Z a 

O P3 

Potash,  KoO,  soluble  o p*. 

in  water,  per  cent.  § $ 

Soluble  and  reverted  £.  ^ 

phosphoric  acid,  13 

PoOK,  per  cent.  5 3 

lanufa 
)t  less 

o . 

1 « 
is 

o ® 
A 

a 5 
<D  O 

; 

o tS 
m ■-< 

' 5% 

.ctur- 

than 

c 

ofe 

W £ 

3° 

^ 'd 

P O 

Federal  Chemical  Company,  Ine.,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Blue  Ribbon  Corn  & Wheat  Fertilizer _ - 

6451 

1.2 

0.5 

12.5 

Corn  Club  Corn  & Wheat  Fertilizer , 

6452 

-1.2 

0.5 

10.0 

Mogul  Phosphate 

6453 

____ 



16.0 

Standard  Meal  Mixture 

6564 

0.8 

10.0 

16.6 

Mogul  Complete  Manure 

6591 

1.2 

"6~5 

8.0 

High  Grade  Phosphate  & Tobacco  Fertilizer 

6628 

0.1 

0.3 

16.0 

Mogul  Ammoniated  Phosphate  . 

6632 

0.4 

12.0 

ioTo 

High  Grade  Half  & Half  Ammoniated  Phosphate 

6633 

0.4 



12.0 

10.0 

1st  Prize  High  Grade  Phosphate 

6651 



_ 

16.0 

Carbonate  Potash  & Phosphate  Special  

6744 

6.2 

2.0 

10.0 

Carbonate  Potash  & Phosphate  Mixture  

6745 

0.8 

3.0 

8.0 

Daybreak  King  Crop  Grower 

6800 

0.8 



8.0 

To 



Daybreak  Champion  Grain  Grower 

6801 

0.4 

0.5 

9.0 

9.0 



1st  Prize  Fertilizer  King 

6802 

0.8 



8.0 

12.0 



Mogul  Grain  Grower 

6803 

0.4  ! 

6.5 

9.0 

9.0 



Black  Land  Special 

6857 

0.4 

1.0 

10.0 

10.0 



Vegetable  Grower 

6920 

2.0 

12.5 



; 

Golden  Harvest 

6927 

2.4 

10.0 

5.0 

Standard  Wheat  & Corn  Maker 

6954 

0.4 

’o’5 

11.5 





Standard  Crop  Maker  

6955 

0.4 

0.5 

11.5 

Daybreak  Clay  Land  Fertilizer 

6956 

0.4 

0.5 

12.5 

Daybreak  Double-Duty  

6957 

0.8 

10.0 

ioTo 



Staff-H-Lif^  ....... 

6958 

0.4 

10.0 

10.0 

Daybreak  Crop  Hustler  __  

6959 

0.4 

IIII 

14.0 

Daybreak  Tennessee  Brown  Phosphate  Rock 

6976 

__ 







32~0 

Mogul  Corn  & Wheat  Fertilizer  

6993 

6.8 

12.0 



Daybreak  Champion  Potash  Fertilizer _ 

7056 



2~0 

8.0 

1 8.6 



Daybreak  Double  Phosphate  & Potash  ___  

7057 



1.0  1 

10.0 

! io.o 



Daybreak  Favorite  Tobacco  Mixture  — ~ 

7058 

1.2 

0.5  | 

8.0 

8.0 



Daybreak  Tobacco  Formula  

7059 

0.4 

1.0 

8.0 

8.0 

Daybreak  Grain  Maker  Phosphate 

7060 

_ 

10.0 

14.0 



Royal  Tobacco  Compound  __  

7061' 

r'o’I 

1.5 

10.0 



Royal  Meal  Mixture 

7062 

0.8  1 

10.0 

10.0 



Half  & Half  Phosphate 

7063 



10.0 

14.0 



High  Grade  Ammoniated  Mixture 

7064 

‘ 6.4  1 



10.0 

12.0 

Clay  Land  Corn  & Wheat  Grower 

7065 

0.8  1 



8.0 

12.0 



Clay  Land  High  Grade  Tobacco  Formula 

7066 

1.2 

6.5 

8.0 

8.0 



Muck  Land  Potash  & Phosphate  Formula 

7067 

3.0 

8.0 

8.0 



Twenty-Four  Phosphate* 

7068 

IjS 



10.0 

14.0 



Staff-O-Life  Fertilizer  

7069 

0.4 

10.0 

12.0 



Corn  Belt  Potash  & Phosphate  Special 

7070 

3.6 

8.0 

8.0 

Double  Value  Truck  & Tomato  Grower 

7093 

"i~2 

0.5 

8.0 

8.0 

— 

Fertile  Chemical  Company,  The,  Cleveland,  Ohio 

Nitrn- Fertile 

7130 

2.0 

3.0 

3.0 

T.ime^Fertilft  

7131 

3.0 

Fertilizer  Company  of  Paris,  111.,  Paris,  111. 

“Paris  Pure  Bone  Meal”  

5505 

2.0 

— 

— 

— 

27.  0 

Fessenden,  F.  L.,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 

“A  Nitrate  of  Soda”  - 

4730 

15.6 

--- 

— 

— - 

— 

Fluhrer  Tobacco  & fcfnuff  Company,  Boonville,  Ind. 

Tobacco  Flour  __  _ ___ 

6667 

1.0 

5.0 

Fox  Chemical  Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Fox  Grain  Grower  _ . 

2728 

0.8 

1.0 

9.0 

Fox  Acid  Phosphate  

2732 

14.0 

A.  A.  Acid  Phosphate __  _ _ 

2733 

10.0 

Fox  High  Grade  Acid  Phosphate 

3607 

16.0 

Fox  Standard  Acid  Phosphate 

3685 

12.0 



Fox  Wheat  & Grain  Special  

3689 

’o~8 

To 

12.0 

Fox  Ground  Raw  Bone 

4089 

2.4 

24.0 

A.  1 Fox  Raw  Bone 

5003 

3.7  1 



1 

____ 

22.0 

TABLE  VIII. — Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale  in  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  manufactur- 
ers to  contain  not  less  than 

Label 

o 

£ 

o 

£ 

o 

| 

z 

a ^ 

<u 

£ ° 

V, 

r*  a) 

£ a 

<3J 

3 . 

3 

O 0) 

W U 

o“® 

32 

2 a 

3 is 

£ £ 

'd 

0) 

u 

0)  r* 
>2  .1 
<d  o +T 

^ o u 

^ o & 
fl 

3 » 

3 O o’ 

O N 

w at- 

O . | 

t« 

to  ' 
o» 

A a 1 
n a 

<D  O 

1* 

3 

W — i 

C O 

I 5 cl 

c 

5§ 

1 ® 
a0* 

W £ 

5° 

ftQ, 

go 
fH  d 

Fox  Chemical  Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

\ 

5872 

0.4 

1.0 

13.0 

5873 

1.2 

0.5 

12.5 

15.0 

5877 

0.4 

5880 

5881 

2.4 

10.0 

11.0 

0.4 

To 

IT 

5882 

1.6 

10.0 

lo.o 

6463 

1.2 

0.5 

10.0 



6464 

0.4 

0.5 

11.5 

IT 



Fox  Grain  Special  1916 

6465 

6466 

0.4 

1.0 

0.5 

0.5 

9.0 

10.0 

i 

6467 

1.2 

0.5 

8.0 

6468 

0.4 

12.0 

6469 

0.8 

16.0 

10.0 

6470 

1.2 

6471 

2.0 

12.5 



6472 

0.1 

’6I6 

16.0 

6635 

0.4 

12.0 



10.0 



Fox  Wheat  & Com  Manure  1916 

6748 

1.0 

’616 

10.0 

6808 

0.8 

8.0 

12.0 

Fox  Ideal  Grain  Grower  

6809 

0.4 

0.5 

9.0 

9.0 

Fox  Crop  Maker  _ _ 

6947 

0.4 

0.5 

11.5 

Early  Harvest  Wheat  & Corn  Maker  

6948 

0.4 

0.5 

11.5 

A-l  Fox  Formula  * 

6949 

0.4 

0.5 

12.5 

Fox  Clay  Land  Special 

6950 

0.4 

0.5 

12.5 

Fox  Double-Quick  

6951 

0.8 

10.0 

1616 

Fox  World  Feedpr 

6952 

0.4 

10.0 

10.0 

Fox  Wonder-Worker  _ __  __  _ __  __  _ _ __ 

6953 

0.4 

14.0 

Red  Fox  Grain  # Grass  Grower 

7071 

0.4 

1.0 

11.0 



Fox  Ideal  Potash  Fertilizer  

7072 

2.0 

8.0 

To 

fnY  Wor]d  Peedpr  Fertilizer 

7073 

0.4 

10.0 

12.0 

Fox  Double  Phosphate  & Potash  _ __ 

7074 

1.0 

10.0 

10.0 

Farly  Gardpn  Tnhaccn  Mivtnre 

7075 

1.2 

0.5 

8.0 

8.0 

fny  Tnhaccn  Pnrmnla. 

7076 

0.4 

1.0 

8.0 

8.0 

Fox  Better  Phosphate  — - _ 

Red  Pny  Tnhflpfn  Onmpnrmd 

7077 

7078 

"o~4 

T6 

10.0 

10.0 

14.0 

— - 

Gleaner  Clearing  House  Association,  Detroit,  Mich. 

Gleaner  2 — 10  Fertilizer 

6543 

1.6 

10.0 

0.5 

Corn  and  Grain  Special  __  _ 

6907 

0.8  ! 

1.0 

10.0 

015 



Phnsphoric  Arid  and  Potash 

6908 

2.0 

10.0 

0.5 

Ammonia,  and  Phosphoric  Acid _ 

6909 

T6 

10.0 

0.5 

Globe  Fertilizer  Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Acorn  Acid  Phosphate  . ... - „ _ __  

2719 

10.0 

Globe  Acid  Phosphate 

2720 

14.0 

Globe  High  Grade  Acid  Phosphate 

3608 

16.0 

Globe  Raw  Bone 

3643 

~8~7 

2216 

Standard  Acid  Phosphate 

3676 

12~0 

Wheat  &,  Grain  Special 

3680 

6.8 

To 

12.0 

Tankage  ...  

3880 

8.2 

11.0 

Acorn  Raw  Bone 

4090 

2.4 

24.0 

Globe  Grain  & Grass  Grower 

4269 

0.4 

i.o 

11.0 

Globe  Money-Maker  

5884 

0.4 

1.0 

13.0 

Globe  Clay  Land  Crop  ftrower 

5885 

1.2 

0.5 

12.5 

Globe  Grain-O-Phosphate  _ 

5890 

0.4 

15.0 

_ 

Globe  Golden  Harvest _ _ 

5891 

2.4 

10.0 

Globe  Blood,  Bone  Phosphate  & Potash  

5892 

0.4 

To 

11.0 

Globe  Half  & Half  Meal  Mixture 

5893 

1.6 

10.0 

16.6 

Globe  Bone  Phosphate  Dust  

5895 

0.8 

To 

9.0 

Universal  Crop  & Tobacco  Fertilizer _ 

6454 

1.2 

10.0 

Globe  Gold  Medal  Mixture  1916  __  

Globe  Soluble  Vegetable  Manure,  1916 

6455 

6456 

0.4 

2.0 

12.0 

12.5 

:::: 

; 

Globe  Tip  Top  Fertilizer  . 

6457 

0.8 

16.0 

Globe  Grain  Fertilizer  . _ 

6458 

0.4 

6.5 

9.0 

IT 

Globe  Good  Luck  Fertilizer  __  ...  _ . . 

6459 

0.4 

0.5  1 

11.5 

— - 

90 


TABLE  VIII. — Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale  in  1918  (continued) 


Label 

Official  No. 

Nitrogen,  N,  ? c 

per  cent.  m p 1 

anteec 
o cont 

<D 

3 . 
|c 

O <D 

w a 

O aJ 
** 
*3 

3g 

£5 

Soluble  and  reverted  £.  ^ 

phosphoric  acid,  3 

P205,  per  cent.  3 g 

anufa 
t less 

o . 

J S 

-5  o 

Cl  e_. 

m 

o £ 

A » 
ft  £ 

<v  O 

o 

W .rt 

ctur- 

than 

C 

o§ 

ft* 

Jo 

d 'd 
o o 

E-i  ci 

Globe  Fertilizer  Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Progress  Corn  & Wheat  Fertilizer 

6460 

1.0 

0:5 

10.0 





Eagle  Corn  & Wheat  Fertilizer _ 

6461 

1.0 

0.5 

10.0 



Braden  Formula  1916 

6462 

1.2 

0.5 

10.0 





Globe  Tip  Top  Ammoniated  Phosphate  - _ _ 

6634 

0.4 

12.0 

10.0 

Globe  King  Fertilizer  _ — . 

6806 

0.8 



8.0 

12.0 



Globe  Tip. Top  Grain  Grower __  

6807 

0.4 

0.5 

9.0 

9.0 

Globe  Complete  Corn  & Wheat  Grower  - 

6913 

1.2 

0.5 

8.0 





Eagle  Fertilizer  - 

6039 

0.4 

0.5 

11.5 





Progress  Fertilizer  

6940 

0.4 

0.5 

11.5 





A-l  Braden  Formula 

6941 

0.4 

0.5 

12.5 





6942 

0.4 

0.5 

12.5 

Globe  Double- Value  

6943 

0.8 

10.0 

io’o 

6944 

0.4 

10.0 

10.0 

Globe  Grain  Maker _ . _ 

6945 

0.4 

14.0 

Globe  Phosphate  & Tobacco  Fertilizer 

6946 

0.1 

H 

16.0 





Globe  Good  Luck  Meal  Mixture 

7002 

0.8 



10.0 

10.0 

Globe  Front  Rank  Fertilizer  

7079 

0.4 

10.0 

12.0 

Old  Cap’s  Tobacco  Compound 

7080 

0.4 

'll 

10.0 

Globe  Tip  Top  Potash  Fertilizer _ 

7081 

2.0 

8.0 

T6 

Big  Spread  Tobacco  Mixture 

7082 

~1.2 

0.5 

8.0 

8.0 



Braden  Tobacco  Formula  

7083 

0.4 

1.0 

8.0 

8.0 



Globe  Double-Value  Phosphate  

7084 

10.0 

14.0 

Globe  Double  Phosphate  & Potash _ . 

7085 

— 

To 

10.0 

10.0 

— 

Goldreich  Fertilizer  Company,  Marion,  Ind. 

Gnldreich  Special 

5646 

6.0 

11.0 

Goodrich,  Wm.  J.,  Royal  Center,  Ind. 

General  Crop  Grower 

6134 

1.0 

3.0 

8.0 



Goodrich  Twelve  Two 

6922 



2.0 

12.0 





Goodrich  Four  Five 

6923 

— 

5.0 

4.0 

— 

— 

Groves  Fertilizer  Works  (The  Joslin-Schmidt  Co.),  Cincinnati,  Ohio 

Monarch  Brand  

5909 





14.0 

1.0 



Ammoniated  Phosphate 

5910 

1.6 

12.0 

1.0 

16%  Acid  Phosphate 

5912 

IT 

16.0 

1.0 

IT 

Economy  Brand  

5914 

'61 

1.6 

10.0 

1.0 



ft — ft7  'Rono 

5917 

1.6 

27.0 

Groves  Raw  Bone — _ _ ___  

6064 

3.7 

22.0 

Harvest  King  — 

6193 

0.8 

’ll 

T5 

To 

Bone  and  Phosphate 

6378 

0.8 

10.0 

10.0 

IT 

Grain  Grower 

6713 

0.8 



12.0 

1.0 



Ideal  Crop  Grower 

6852 

0.4 



12.0 

1.0 



"Perfect  "Driller 

7053 

0.4 

8.0 

8.0 

Groves  Half  and  Half 

7054 

0.8 

’ll 

8.0 

8.0 

— 

Hancock  Fertilizer  Co.,  Inc.,  The,  Greenfield,  Ind. 

Rone  Meal 

7147 

2.0 

22.0 

Hess  & Bro.,  Inc.,  S.  M.,  Subsidiary  of  The  American  Agricultural 

Chemical  Company,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

High  Grade  Acid  Phosphate  

6673 





14.0 

1.0 



Special  High  Grade  Acid  Phosphate 

6674 





16.0 



Standard  Super  Phosphate 

6675 

0.8 



10.0 





Superior  Super  Phosphate  

6676 

1.6 



10.0 





Indiana,  Special  Phosphate  .. 

6677 

1.6 

12.0 

Keystone  Phosphate 

6678 

0.8 

To 

8.0 

To 

IT 

Special  Corn  Manure,  1016 

6679 

0.8 

1.0 

10.0 





Wheat  & Grass  Manure,  1916 

6680 

0.8 

1.0 

10.0 





Ammoniated  Super  Phosphate,  1916 

6681 

1.6 

1.0 

8.0 



Big  Crop  Fertilizer,  1916 

6682 

1.6 

1.0 

10.0 



Potato  Manure,  1916 _ . 

6683 

2.4 

1.0 

10.0 

Hess’  Ground  Bone 

6684 

2.4 







20.6 

Alkaline  Phosphate  _ 

6733 

i.o 

12.0 

Special  Ground  Bone 

6865 

’ll 



27.6 

Reliable  Super  Phosphate 

6924 

2.4 

— 

io.o 

— 

9i 


TABLE  VIII. — Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale  in  1918  (continued) 


Label 

Official  No. 

Guar 
ers  t 

Z 

o'  • 

gS 

2 u 
t- 

Z ft 

O P> 

Potash,  KoO,  soluble  o 

in  water,  per  cent.  § g 

1 by  m 
ain  nc 

-3 

a) 

Sh 

> rd 

£ °»  S 

d H u 
& 

U H ft 

3 a ^ 

O H C1 
CO  ftp-! 

tanufa 
>t  less 

c>  . 

Is 

a " 

o 5> 

A 

ft  5 
<D  O 

!* 

O 

l/l  •-< 

ctur- 

than 

c 

2 £ 

■5  p* 

p<  . 

CO  £ 
20 
ft£ 

3-cf 

Oo 

H 3 

Hilgemeier  & Bro.,  F.,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Dried  Blood  Fertilizer 

7137 

8.0 

— 

— 

— 

Hopkins  Fertilizer  Company,  New  Albany,  Ind. 

Hopkins  “Old  Times  Pure  Raw  Bone” .. 

3430 

3.5 







21.5 

4515 

15.0 

Hopkins  High  Grade  Acid  Phosphate 

4606 

7777 

To 

To 

Raw  Rock  Phosphate 

5132 









§676 

5514 

2.0 

27.0 

5678 

2.5 

876 

Good  Enough  No.  1 

5777 

0.8 

1.0 

1276 

i.o 

7777 

6139 

16.0 

1.0 

Indiana  Special  No.  2 

6210 

’673 

To 

15.0 

1.0 

Wheat  & Corn  Grower  No.  2 _ _ 

6307 

0.4 

1.0 

10.0 

1.0 



6308 

1.6 

12.0 

1.0 

Tankage  & Phosphate  Special _ - _ 

6309 

0.8 

12.0 

1.0 

Half  & Half  No.  1 1 

6310 

1.6 

’176 

6.0 

6.0 

Hoosier  Special  - - - -- 

6311 

0.4 

0.5 

8.0 

1.0 



Truck  Grower  No.  1 — 

6482 

0.6 

2.5 

7.0 

1.0 



Bone  Potash  & Phosphate  No.  1 --  ___  _ 

6605 

0.8 

1.0 

9.0 

1.0 



Ammoniated  Phosphate  Special  ___  . 

6627 

1.6 



10.0 

1.0 



Hopkins’  Half  Seven  Three — 

6666 

0.4 

3.0 

7.0 

1.0 



Blood,  Bone  & Phosphate  No.  1 - 

6704 

1.6 

1.0 

8.0 

1.0 

Hopkins  Half-Ten-Five  

6867 

0.4 

5.0 

10.0 

1.0 

Indiana  Special  No.  2 Fertilizer ___ 

6968 

0.3 

1.0 

14.0 

1.0 



Hoosier  Brand  — - 

7097 

0.4 



10.0 

1.0 



Harvest  King  - - --  - - 

7098 

0.8 

10.0 

1.0 

Hurst  & Company,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Hurst’s  Com  and  Wheat  Grower  2—8—2 

6893 

1.6 

2.0 

8.0 

1.0 

Hurst’s  Winner  1 — 8—2  ...  - . 

6894 

0.8 

2.0 

8.0 

1.0  i 



Hurst’s  Farmer’s  Favorite  1 — 13 

6895 

0.8 



13.0 

1.0 



Hurst’s  Triumph  Brand  1 — 10 — 1 

6896 

0.8 

1.0 

10.0 

1.0 



Hurst’s  Acid  Phosphate  Sixteen  Percent _ 

6897 

— 

— 

16.0 

1.0 

— 

Independent  Packers  Fertilizer  Company,  The,  Columbus,  Ohio 

Number  Two,  Bone  Meal  and  Phosphate  Mixture . _ 

6255 

0.8 

1.0 

8.0 

8.0 

Number  5,  Universal  Crop  (1916)  

6646 

1.6 

10.0 

Number  1,  Independent  Favorite  (1917)  

6849 

0.8 

’676 

11.0 

Number  3,  Corn  Wheat  Oats  & Clover  (1917) 

6850 

0.8 

0.5 

8.0 

Number  4,  Independent  Grain  Special  ___ 

6851 

0.8 

1.0 

8.0 

Number  9,  Ammoniated  Phosphate  (1918)  _ 

7043 

0.4 

12.0 

No.  8— Ammoniated  Special  . 

7112 

0.4 

10.0 

No.  6— Truck  & Tobacco  Special . 

7113 

0.8 

To 

8.0 



Indianapolis  Rendering  Company,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Superphosphate  

3264 

14.0 

Our  Grain  Grower 

3561 

’67i 

’176 

7.0 

’176 

Corn  & Wheat  Grower  _ . _ 

3562 

0.8 

2.0 

8.0 

1.0 

Our  Half  & Half 

4807 

1.2 

8.0 

11.0 

Complete  Manure __  

5811 

0.8 

176 

9.0 

16%  Acid  Phosphate _ __  ___ 

6186 

16.0 

Superphosphated  Manure  __ 

6238 

To 

10.0 

To 

Corn  & Wheat  Grower  without  Potash 

6277 

0.8 

8.0 

Soil  Food  __  _ 

6278 

0.8 

0.5 

8.0 

Plant  Food  ..  _ ... 

6279 

0.8 

1.0 

12.0 

Black  Soil  Formula _ 

6280 

0.4 

3.0 

5.0 

Bone  Phosphate  & Potash _ _ 

6700 

0.8 

3.0 

8.0 

Ammoniated  Phosphate 

7026 

0.4 

10.0 

International  Agricultural  Corporation,  Cincinnati  Works,  Cincinnati,  0. 

Ideal  Phosphate  

5383 

14  0 

Hubbell’s  Crop  Maker  

6006 

’678 

’276 

8.0 

’176 

Hubbell’s  High  Phosphate  and  Potash 

6007 

2.0 

12.0 

1.0 

C.  F.  & C.  W.  Meteor  Brand 

6011 

T6 

2.0 

8.0 

1.0 

C.  F.  & C.  W.  Crown  Brand  _ __ ___ 

6013 

0.8 

2.0 

8.0 

1.0 



92 


TABLE  VIII. — Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale  in  1918  (continued') 


Label 

Official  No. 

Guar; 
ers  t 

C .j 
® a 

tog 

£ u 
-M  In 

e © 

2 p. 

anteec 
o cont 

a; 

3 . 

o a> 
w o 

O a! 

** 

-2  £ 
iS.s 

Soluble  and  reverted  E. 

phosphoric  acid,  p ^ 

P2Ok,  per  cent.  5 3 

anufa 
4 less 

.2  • 

! § 
■s? 

to 

o ® 

A 

ft  10 

® o 

Is 

ctur- 

than 

.2  8 
o$5 

W £ 

5° 

P-C^ 

° '3 

EH  sj 

International  Agricultural  Corporation,  Cincinnati  Works,  Cincinnati,  0. 

C.  F.  & C.  W.  Best  Acid  Phosphate  __  __  - 

6015 

14.0 

1.0 

Buffalo  Grain  and  Grass  Grower 

6021 

~6T§ 

To 

8.0 

L0 

7777 

Buffalo  Phosphate  and  Potash _ — ___ 

6022 

2.0 

12.0 

1.0 

Buffalo  Dissolved  Phosphate 

6023 

14.0 

1.0 

I.  A.  C.  16%  Acid  Phosphate  

6024 

To 

L0 

T,  A.  G,  Bnnp  Meal 

6026 

2.4 

22.0 

I.  A.  C.  Pine  Steamed  Bone  ___  

6027 

0.8 

29.0 

Buffalo  Garbage  Tankage  and  Phosphate _ 

6174 

0.4 

6676 

’676 

18%  Acid  Phosphate 

6204 

18.0 

0.5 

Wheat  Corn  & Oat  Special 

6244 

’67§ 

”i7o 

10.0 

1.0 

Buffalo  Complete  Fertilizer  _ _ 

6549 

1.6 

1.0 

8.0 

1.0 

Buffalo  Crop  Grower  

6550 

0.8 

1.0 

8.0 

1.0 

6551 

1.6 

10.0 

1.0 

Farmers  Favorite  

6552 

o'.s 

To 

i!o 

Buffalo  Buckeye  Brand  1 

6553 

To 

10.0 

1.0 

HubbelPs  Complete  Fertilizer  __  

6554 

’676 

1.0 

8.0 

1.0 

Hubbell’s  Wheat  Corn  & Oats  Special v 

6555 

0.8 

1.0 

10.0 

1.0 

Hubbell’s  Crop  Grower 

6556 

0.8 

1.0 

8.0 

1.0 

Hubbell’s  Hoosier  Brand  _ — 

6557 

1.0 

10.0 

1.0 

C.  F.  & C.  W.  Triumph  Brand 

6566 

1.0 

10.0 

1.0 

C.  F.  & C.  W.  Smith’s  Special  

6567 

~0~8 

1.0 

8.0 

1.0 

DP  fr.  C.  W Rfirf  Pihhrm  Brand 

6568 

1.6 

1.0 

8.0 

1.0 

Buffalo  Grain  Grower  

6725 

0.8 

13.0 

2.0 

7777 

Buffalo  Two  Eight  Two  _ 

6799 

1.6 

To 

8.0 

1.0 

Hubbell’s  Indiana  Highland  2—8—2 

6855 

1.6 

2.0 

8.0 

1.0 

Sppri^l  Wheat  Fprtilizpr 

6938 

0.8 

22.0 

Hubbell  High  Potash  Substitute 

7132 

’£76 

6676 

’676 

James  & Company,  C.  C.,  Chicago,  111. 

James  16%  Acid  Phosphate 

7096 

— 

— 

16.0 

— - 

.... 

Jarecki  Chemical  Company,  The,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 

C.  0.  D.  Phosphate  — _ 

2918 

14.0 

1.0 

Number  One  Guano  with  Phosphate  and  Potash 

4288 

”578 

To 

8.0 

1.0 



Ground  Bonp 

5189 

1.6 

27.0 

Raw  Bone 

5559 

3.7 

22.0 

A.  Middle  West  Formula _ 

5818 

0.8 

’176 

6676 

’676 

A.  Number  One  Formula 

5819 

0.8 

1.0 

9.0 

1.0 

An  Acid  Phosphate  ___  

6145 



16.0 

1.0 



Jarecki’s  Cereala 

6296 

1.6 

12.0 

1.0 



Jareckils  Lake  Erie  Guano  with  Phosphate  & Potash 

6297 

1.2 

’676 

9.0 

1.0 



Amrnrminted  Phosphate 

6298 

0.8 

10.0 

1.0 

Tobacco  & Truck  Grower 

6299 

1.6 

676 

8.0 

1.0 

Revised  Black  Soil  Special  _ 

6575 

0.4 

2.0 

6.0 

1.0 



Revised  Indiana  Black  Soil  Special _ 

6576 

0.4 

3.0 

6.0 

1.0 



C-Raw  Bone  & Phosphate  Mixture 

6751 

1.6 



8.0 

8.0 



Jarecki’s  Little  Giant  

6759 

0.4 

i.o 

10.0 

1.0 



A.  Tobacco  & Truck  Grower 

7045 

0.8 

2.0 

8.0 

1.0 

Jones  Phosphate  Company,  The  Robin,  Nashville,  Tenn. 

Ground  Phosphate  Rock  

5451 

28.0 

Kaufman  Fertilizer  Company,  The,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 

“A”  Harvest  King 

4291 

0.8 

2.0 

8.0 

1.0 



“Dissolved  Phosphate’’ 

4731 

' 

14.0 

1.0 

A.  Complete  Ration  

5836 

6.8 

6.6 

12.0 

1.0 



Kaufman  Harvest  King 

5839 

0.8 

1.0 

9.0 

1.0 



A.  Special  Wheat  Fertilizer 

5840 

0.8 

1.0 

9.0 

1.0 



Kaufman’s  Corn  Wheat  & Oats  Grower 

6300 

1.2 

1.0 

9.0 

1.0 



Kaufman’s  Special  Potato  & Tobacco  Fertilizer 

6301 

1.6 

1.0 

8.0 

1.0 



Jewel  Plant  Food 

6302 

1.6 



12.0 

1.0 



Phosphate  and  Ammonia 

6303 

0.8 

10.0 

1.0 

Revised  Indiana  Black  Soil  Special  

6580 

0.4 

To 

6.0 

1.0 



Revised  Black  Soil  Special 

6581 

0.4 

2.0 

6.0 

1.0 

Acid  Phosphate  16%  

6707 

16.0 

' 1.0 

— 

93 


TABLE  VIII. — Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale  in  1918  (continued) 

Guaranteed  by  manufactur- 
ers to  contain  not  less  than 


Isabel 


Kaufman  Fertilizer  Company,  The,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 

A Pure  Bone 

Kaufman’s  Half  & Half  

Kaufman’s  Banner  Crop  Grower  

Kaufman’s  A.  Special  Potato  and  Tobacco  Fertilizer 

Kentucky  Fertilizer  Company,  Branch,  Federal  Chemical  Company,  Inc., 
Louisville,  Ky. 

0.  K.  Corn,  Wheat  & Oat  Grower 

O.  K.  Grain  Grower  

O.  K.  Phosphate  

Standard  Phosphate  

Good  Luck  Phosphate 

O.  K.  Raw  Bone 

0.  K.  Fine  Raw  Bone 

O.  K.  High  Grade  Acid  Phosphate 

0.  K.  Wheat  & Grain  Special 

0.  K.  Ammoniated  Phosphate  

0.  K.  Clay  Land  Crop  Grower 

O.  K.  Old  Reliable  

O.  K.  Special  Meal  Mixture 

0.  K.  Half  & Half  Meal  Mixture 

O.  K.  Corn,  Wheat  & Clover  Grower 

0.  K.  Grain  Special  

0.  K.  Special  Mixture  

0.  K.  Corn  & Wheat  Fertilizer  - — 

O.  K.  Gold  Medal  Corn  & Wheat  Grower 

O.  K.  Mixture  

O.  K.  Special  Crop  Grower  1916 

0.  K.  Gold  Medal  Ammoniated  Phosphate 

O.  K.  Golden  King  Fertilizer  

0.  K.  Gold  Medal  Grain  Grower 

O.  K.  Tobacco  Fertilizer  

O.  K.  Gold  Medal  Wheat  & Corn  Maker 

0.  K.  Crop  Maker  

0.  K.  Clay  Land  Corn  & Wheat  Grower 

O.  K.  Double-Header  

0.  K.  Life-Saver  

O.  K.  Bread-Winner  * 

Level-Best  Phosphate  

0.  K.  Level  Best  Tobacco  Compound  

Gold  Medal  Potash  Fertilizer 

0.  K.  Double  Phosphate  & Potash 

Farmer’s  Friend  Tobacco  Mixture 

0.  K.  Tobacco  Formula  

0.  K.  Life-Saver  Fertilizer  

Kirke  Chemical  Company,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

Kirke  Fertilizer  

Louisville  Fertilizer  Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Special  Wheat  Grower 

Eagle  Guano  

Eagle  Indiana  Special  Corn  Grower 

Nitrate  of  Soda 

Eagle  Indiana  Phosphate  

Eagle  Fine  Raw  Bone  Meal 

Eagle  Grain  Formula  

Eagle  Special  Grain  Grower 

Eagle  High  Grade  Dissolved  Bone  Phosphate 

Eagle  Sixteen  Percent.  

Eagle  Bone  Phosphate  & Potash 

Eagle  Slaughter  House  Bone  & Phosphate 

Grain  Formula  Special  

Special  Grain  Grower  Formula 

Indiana  Special  Wheat  Formula  


Official  No. 

Nitrogen,  N, 
per  cent. 

Potash,  K2Of  soluble 
in  water,  per  cent. 

Soluble  and  reverted 

phosphoric  acid, 

PnOr>,  per  cent. 

Insoluble  phosphoric 

acid,  P205,  per  cent. 

Total  phosphoric 
jacid,  P205,  per  cent. 

6756 

1.6 

.... 

27.0 

6757 

1.6 

To 

8.0 



6760 

0.4 

To 

10.0 

1.0 



7047 

0.8 

2.0 

8.0 

1.0 

4559 

0.4 

1.0 

11.0 

1.0 

4560 

0.4 

1.0 

11.0 

1.0 



4563 





14.0 





4564 





12.0 





4565 



10.0 





4566 

~3~7 







22.0 

4567 

2.4 







24.0 

5508 

__ 



16.0 





5767 

6.8 

1.0 

12.0 





5898 

0.4 



15.0 





5902 

1.2 

0.5 

12.5 





5903 

0.4 

1.0 

13.0 





5904 

2.4 

10.0 





5905 

1.6 

10.0 

10.0 

,J._ 

6409 

0.8 

To 

9.0 



6410 

0.4 

0.5 

9.0 





6411 

0.4 

0.5 

11.5 





6412 

1.0 

0.5 

10.0 



6413 

1.2 

0.5 

10.0 





6414 

0.4 

12.0 





6415 

0.8 



16.0 





6636 

0.4 

12.0 

10.0 



6804 

0.8 

8.0 

; i2.o 



6805 

0.4 

~0~5 

9.0 

9.0 



6931 

1.0 

0.5 

10.0 

6960 

0.4 

0.5 

11.5 

6961 

0.4 

0.5 

11.5 

6962 

0.4 

0.5 

12.5 



6963 

0.8 

10.0 

10.0 

6964 

0.4 



10.0 

10.0 

6965 

0.4 

14.0 

7086 

_ 

_ _ 

10.0 

ii’o 



7087 

6.4 

1.5 

10.0 



7088 



2.0 

1 8.0 

To 



7089 

1.0 

10.0 

10.0 



7090 

T5 

0.5 

8.0 

8.0 



7001 

0.4 

1.0 

8.0 

8.0 



7092 

0.4 

10.0 

12.0 

6590 

5.0 

3.1 

7.5 

0.7 

2786 

0.8 

1.0 

7.0 

S i.o 

3423 

1.6 

2.0 

10.0 

1.0 

3424 

0.8 

1.0 

7.0 

1.0 

3501 

15.0 

3564 





To 

To- 

5312 

2.4 



24"  0 

5714 

0.4 

3.6 

lo.o 

T6 



5715 

0.4 

3.0 

1 8.0 

0.5 



5985 





14.0 

0.5 



5986 

_ __ 



16.0 

0.5 



5988 

0.4 

1.0 

11.0 

0.5 



5989 

1.6 

2.0 

8.0 

0.5 



6249 

0.4 

2.0 

10.0 

0.5 



6250 

0.4 

2.0 

8.0 

0.5 

6251 

0.8 

2.0 

1 12.0 

0.5 

1 

94 


TABLE  VIII. — Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale  in  1918  (continued) 


Label 

Official  No. 

Guar 
ers  t 

c*  • 

£ u 
4->  U 

g §, 

o 

Potash,  K20,  soluble  o 3 

in  water,  per  cent.  § ® 

Soluble  and  reverted  £.  ^ 

phosphoric  acid,  3 ^ 

P205,  per  cent.  3 3 

anufa 
it  less 

O • 
!? 

0 ® 

.c  ft 
P.  a 
<u  0 

0 >d 
» — 
c 0 

ctur- 

than 

a 

a 8 

Sh  , 

0 <3 

■P  d. 
a 

w u 
20 
a£ 

5 'd 

F-i  d 

Louisville  Fertilizer  Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

One  Ten  One  Fertilizer  _ 

6402 

0.8 

1.0 

10.0 

0.5 

Eagle  Ammoniated  Phosphate ___ 

6403 

1.6 

10.0 

0.5 

Special  Slaughter  House  Bone  Phosphate - 

6404 

L6 

To 

8!o 

o!5 

Eagle  Grain  Grower  Special ___ 

6405 

0.4 

1.0 

8.0 

0.5 

Eagle  Guano  Special  

6574 

1.6 

1.0 

10.0 

0.5 

Soluble  Bone  & Phosphate __  ■ _ __  

6728 

0.8 

1.5 

8.0 

0.5 

Eagle  One  Eight  Three  

6730 

0.8 

3.0 

8.0 

0.5 

Eagle  One  Twelve  One  Fertilizer 

6858 

0.8 

1.0 

12.0 

0.5 

Eagle  Twelve  One  Fertilizer _ _ __  

6859 

1.0 

12.0 

0.5 

Bear  Fine  Raw  Bone  Meal _ _ 

6868 

2.4 

24.0 

Bear  Special  Corn  & Wheat  Grower  ___  ... 

6870 

o!s 

To 

To 

"615 

Bear  Grain  Grower  Special ___  __ 

6871 

0.4 

1.0 

8.0 

0.5 

Bear  Special  Grain  Grower 

6872 

0.4 

3.0 

8.0 

0.5 

Bear  Bone  Phosphate  & Potash  . _ 

6873 

0.4 

1.0 

11.0 

0.5 

6874 

1.0 

10.0 

0.5 

Bear  Special  Slaughter  House  Bone  Phosphate 

6875 

T6 

1.0 

8.0 

0^5 

Bear  Ammoniated  Phosphate  _____ 

6876 

1.6 

10.0 

0.5 

Bear  Ammoniated  Potash  Mixture  . __  __ 

6877 

0.2 

”576 

12.0 

0.5 

Bear  High  Grade  Dissolved  Phosphate _ 

6878 

14.0 

0.5 

Jones  Ammoniated  Potash  Mixture  

6879 

"<L2 

"576 

12.0 

0.5 

Jones  Special  Grain  Grower  __ 

6880 

0.4 

3.0 

8.0 

0.5 

Jnnes  Grain  Grower  Special 

6881 

0.4 

1.0 

8.0 

0.5 

Jones  Sixteen  Per  Cent 

6882 

16.0 

0.5 

Jones  High  Grade  Dissolved  Phosphate 

6883 

14.0 

0.5 

Jones  Twelve  One  Fertilizer 

6884 

To 

12.0 

0.5 

Jones  Ammoniated  Phosphate 

6885 

T6 



10.0 

0.5 

Jones  One  Ten  One  Fertilizer  

6886 

0.8 

i.o 

10.0 

0.5 

Jones  Special  Slaughter  House  Bone  Phosphate 

6887 

1.6 

1.0 

8.0 

0.5 



Jones  Special  Corn  & Wheat  Grower ___  

6888 

0.8 

1.0 

7.0 

0.5 

Jones  Bone  Phosphate  & Potash . 

6889 

0.4 

1.0 

11.0 

0.5 



Jones  Fine  Raw  Bone  Meal _ 

6891 

2.4 

24.0 

Eagle  Special  1 — 12  Fertilizer 

7004 

0.8 



1216 

0I5 



Eagle  1 — 14  Fertilizer  _ 

7005 

0.8 



14.0 

0.5 



Hoosier  Tomato  Grower _ 

7104 

1.6 

1.0 

10.0 

0.5 



Louisville  Standard  

7105 

0.8 

1.0 

8.0 

0.5 



Hoosier  Favorite 

7106 

0.4 

— 

10.0 

0.5 

— 

McCartney  Bros.,  Greenville,  Ohio 

“C”  Perfection  Crop  Maker  and  Potash 

6925 



1.0 

11.0 

1.0 



“0”  Prize-Taker,  Tobacco  & Potato  Special _ __  _ 

6926 

1.0 

1.0 

8.0 

1.0 



“1  fi%  Anid  Phosphate” 

7003 

16.0 

Major  Bros.  Packing  Company,  The,  Mishawaka,  Ind. 

Major’s  Fertilizer 

4217 

3.5 

16.0 

Morris  & Company,  Chicago,  111. 

Big  One — Pure  Ground  Raw  Bone 

4001 

3.0 







24.0 

Big  Two— Pure  Bone  Meal „_  

4092 

2.0 





28.0 

Big  Eight— Ammoniated  Acid  Phosphate  and  Potash 

4098 

0.8 

1.6 

7.6 

1.0 



Big  Five  _ _ _ __  _ _ __ 

4352 

2.5 

1.0 

6.0 

4.0 

Big  Ten  Prepared  Manure  with  Phosphate  and  Potash _ 

5146 

1.6 

2.0 

8.0 

2.0 



Special  Big  Six  _ 

6530 

0.4 

1.0 



16.0 

Special  Big  Seven  

6531 

0.8 



22.0 

Special  Big  Nine  _ _ _ 

6532 

0.4 

1.6 

II. 6 

2.0 



Rpeeial  Big  Fleven 

6534 

0.8 

10.0 

1.0 

Special  Big  Twelve  __  __  _ — 

6535 

1.6 

mi 

12.0 

2.0 



Special  Big  Three  

6721 

0.4 

3.0 

11.0 

2.0 



Special  Big  Four  Fertilizer 

7055 

0.4 

— 

13.0 

5.0 

National  Plant  Food  Company,  Eau  Claire,  Wis. 

Red  Snapper  Plant  Food  _ _ ___  

7136 

5.0 

1.2 

4.0 

8.0 

— 

Nitrate  Agencies  Company,  Western  Branch,  Columbus,  Ohio 

Acid  Phosphate  16% 

5576 





16.0 

1.0 



Nitrate  of  Soda  ___  _ __  

5578 

15.0 









Nitropo  — 

7148 

15.0 

15.0 







95 


TABLE  VIII. — Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale  in  1918  (continued) 


Label 

Official  No. 

Guar 
ers  t 

£ 

S3*  • 

£ w 

U 

£ <D 

55  o, 

anteec 
;o  cont 

0) 

3 . 

| = 

O <D 

w o 

O 

N Q. 

*2 

2 «* 

$ * 

£.s 

Soluble  and  reverted  £.  ^ 

phosphoric  acid,  3 ^ 

P205,  per  cent.  3 3 

anufa 
>t  less 

0 . 

0 3 

3 <u 

ft” 

s® 

& 

a S 
v O 

!* 

O 

U1  — < 

ctur- 

than 

c 

.2  8 

1 ® 
Is 
20 

3 'O 
Oo 

H d 

Packer  Fertilizer  Company,  The,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

3253 

14.0 

Our  Wheat  Grower 

3558 

"<L8 

~IT6 

7.0 

To 

IT 

Corn  & Wheat  Special  

3559 

0.8 

2.0 

8.0 

1.0 

3560 

0.8 

3.0 

8.0 

1.0 

Half  & Half  __  

4797 

1.2 

8.0 

11.0 

5805 

0.8 

To 

9.0 

6187 

16.0 

Superphosphated  Manure  ..  -- 

6239 

To 



10.0 

To 



Black  Soil  Formula 

6282 

0.4 

3.0 

5.0 





Plant  Food  - — - 

6283 

0.8 

1.0 

12.0 





6284 

0.8 

0.5 

8.0 

Corn  & Wheat  Special  without  Potash — - 

6286 

0.8 

8.0 

IT 

Nitro  Phosphate  - 

7024 

0.4 

— 

10.0 

— 

— 

Packers  Fertilizer  Company,  The,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 

Humus  Phosphate  _ _ . — _ 

3902 

0.4 



12.0 

1.0 



Ammoniated  Phosphate - - - 

4296 

0.8 

"2.0 

8.0 

1.0 



“Acid  Phosphate”  _ - . _ 

4586 





14.0 

1.0 



An  Ammoniated  Phosphate _ . 

5847 

0.8 

1.0 

9.0 

1.0 

A.  Quality  Brand  . — 

5848 

0.8 

1.0 

12.0 

1.0 

Big  Bonanza  - - - 

6304 

1.6 

12.0 

1.0 

Packer’s  Potato,  Tobacco  & Truck  Manure  --  ___  _ --  __ 

6305 

1.6 

To 

8.0 

1.0 

Packer’s  Sweepstakes  - . 

6306 

1.2 

1.0 

9.0 

1.0 



Revised  Black  Soil  Special 

6577 

0.4 

2.0 

6.0 

1.0 



Revised  Indiana  Black  Soil  Special . - ..  ... 

6578 

0.4 

3.0 

6.0 

1.0 



Favorite  Grain  Grower 

6621 

0.8 



10.0 

1.0 



Acid  Phosphate  16% - _ 

6708 



16.0 

1.0 



A.  Bone  Meal  __  _ __  _ _ _ 

6752 

1.6 

27.0 

Pure  Bone  with  Phosphate  __  _ 

6753 

1.6 

IT 

To 

To 

Packer’s  0.  K.  Fertilizer  ...  . 

6761 

0.4 

i.o 

10.0 

1.0 



Packer’s  A.  Potato  Tobacco  and  Truck  Manure  ..  

7048 

0.8 

2.0 

8.0 

1.0 

— 

Pearl  Packing  House,  The,  Madison,  Ind. 

Yunker’s  Pearl  Brand  _ __  

5492 

5.0 

— 

— 

— 

8.0 

Pero  & Stoecker,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Pure  Animal  Matter  Corn  and  Wheat  Grower  __  

3623 

3.5 

10.0 

“A”  Pure  Bone  Meal  - _ . - . 

4999 

3.0 

— 

— 

— 

20.0 

Pulverized  Manure  Company,  The,  Chicago,  111. 

Wizard  Brand  Pure  Ground  Bone  __  

4610 

2.0 

20.0 

Wizard  Brand  Pure  Manure  - 

4656 

1.7 

To 

1.0 

Wizard  Brand  Pulverized  Sheep  Manure 

4974 

2.5 

1.5 

— 

— 

1.5 

Rasin-Monumental  Company,  Sudsidiary  of  the  Virginia-Carolina 

Chemical  Company,  Cincinnati  Division,  Cincinnati,  Ohio. 

Rasin’s  General  Favorite  __ _ 

6718 

1.6 

2.0 

8.0 

1.5 

Rasin’s  Fenhumus  Fertilizer  . _ _ _ 

6720 

0.4 

12.0 

1.5 

Rasin’s  14%  Acid  Phosphate  

6834 

14.0 

1.5 

Rasin’s  16%  Acid  Phosphate  - _ _ __ 

6835 

16.0 

1.5 

Rasin’s  20%  Acid  Phosphate  

6836 

20.0 

1.5 

Rasin’s  Royal  Grain  Grower  - 

6837 

To 

12.0 

1.5 

Rasin’s  Grain  Fertilizer __  _ __ 

6838 

Ts 

13.0 

1.5 

Rasin’s  Special  Plant  Food 

6839 

1.6 

11.0 

1.5 

Rasin’s  Farmers’  Success  ..  

6841 

0.8 

To 

8.0 

1.5 

Rasin’s  Reliable  Wheat  and  Corn  Fertilizer 

6842 

0.8 

2.0 

8.0 

1.5 

Rasin’s  Big  Giant  Phosphate 

6843 

0.8 

3.0 

8.0 

1.5 

Rasin’s  Phosphate  and  Bone  Meal __  ... 

6844 

0.8 

10.0 

12.0 

Rasin’s  Valley  Pride 

7109 

0.8 

To 

8.0 

1.5 

— 

Rauh  & Sons  Fertilizer  Company,  E.,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Rauh’s  Red  Star  Phosphate 

3186 

14.0 



Rauh’s  Half  Pure  Raw  Bone  & Half  Pure  Bone  Phosphate 

3193 

T5 

8.5 

n.o 

Corn  & Wheat  Grower 

3553 

0.8 

To 

8.0 

1.0 

Nitrate  of  Soda  _ ___  

3742 

15.6 

96 


TABLE  VIII. — Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  cm  Sale  in  1918  (continued) 


Isabel  / 

Official  No. 

Guar; 
ers  t 

fc* 

• 

£ u 

4->  U 
£ <D 
^ p* 

O P 

Potash,  KsO,  soluble  a £ 

in  water,  per  cent.  § ® 

Soluble  and  reverted  & 

phosphoric  acid,  3 ^ 

PoOn,  per  cent. 

r+  fa 

Insoluble  phosphoric  ~ 3 

acid,  P206,  per  cent.  w 5, 

ctur- 

than 

c 

.ss 

1 ® 
ft0: 

Jo 

ft^ 

1 3 

S’3 

fH  ej 

Rauh  & Sons  Fertilizer  Company,  E.,  Indianapolis,  Ind 

Soluble  Fertilizer  __  

5801 

0.8 

1.0 

7.0 





5802 

0.8 

1.0 

9.0 

16%  Acid  Phosphate 

6185 

16.0 

Superphosphated  Manure 

6240 

To 

T1 

10.0 

To 

IT 

6287 

0.8 

8.0 

Plant  Food  __  _ 

6288 

0.8 

To 

12.0 

Black  Soil  Formula . — 

6289 

0.4 

3.0 

5.0 



Soil  Food - 

6291 

0.8 

0.5 

8.0 

Dissolved  Bone  Phosphate  & Potash 

6701 

0.8 

3.0 

8.0 

7025 

0.4 

10.0 

Read  Phosphate  Company,  New  Albany  Sales  Department, 

New  Albany,  Ind. 

Read’s  High  Grade  Acid  Phosphate __ 

3040 





14.0 

1.0 



Nitrate  of  Soda  . — _ 

3045 

14.7 

Read’s  Complete  Fertilizer  

4250 

0.8 

To 

8.0 

To 



Read’s  Pure  Raw  Bone 

4597 

3.5 

21.5 

Raw  Rnpk  Phosphate  ........... 

5134 

30.0 

Indiana  Special  No.  1 

5783 

Ti 

~|Io 

1316 

To 

Clnmpletfi  No.  1 ...... 

5785 

0.8 

2.0 

10.0 

1.0 

Good  Enough  No.  1 _ _ 

5786 

0.8 

1.0 

12.0 

1.0 

Read’s  Climax  Acid  Phosphate  _ 

6138 





16.0 

1.0  1 



Indiana  Special  No.  2 

6211 

6.3 

1.0 

15.0 

1.0 



Half  & Half  No.  1 

6312 

1.6 

1.0 

6.0 

6.0 

Hoosier  Special 

6313 

0.4 

0.5 

8.0 

1.0 

Tankage  & Phosphate  Special __ 

6314 

0.8 



12.0 

1.0 



Ammoniated  Potash  & Phosphate  No.  1 

6315 

0.4 

1.0 

10.0 

1.0 



nomplete  No  9. 

6316 

0.8 

1.0 

9.0 

1.0 

Fa.yorit.e 

6317 

1.6 

12.0 

1.0 

Truck  Grower  No.  1 __  

6484 

0.6 

Ti 

7.0 

1.0 

Half-Seven-Three  

6606 

0.4 

3.0 

7.0 

1.0 



Blood  Bone  & Phosphate  No.  1 

6705 

1.6 

1.0 

8.0 

1.0 



Read’s  Steamed  Bone  

6749 

0.8 



29.0 

Read’s  Five-Five ___  __  ___ 

6866 



To 

5.6 

i.o 



Ammoniated  Potash  & Phosphate  No.  2 

6929 

6.5 

i.i 

9.4 

2.5 



Indiana  Special  No.  2 Fertilizer r 

6966 

0.3 

1.0 

14.0 

1.0 



TTarypst  Ring 

7099 

0.8 

10.0 

1.0 

Hoosier  Brand _ 

7100 

0.4  ! 

10.0 

1.0 

Royster  Guano  Company,  F.  S.,  Northern  Division,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Royster’s  14%  Acid  Phosphate . 

6782 

14.0 

0.5 

Royster’s  H.  G.  16%  Acid  Phosphate 

6783 

16.0 

0.5 



Royst.pr’s  Special  Wheat  Grower 

6785 

0.8 

12.0 

0.5 

Royster’s  Penguin  Ammoniated  Superphosphate 

6786 

1.6 

10.0 

0.5 

Royster’s  Cuckoo  Crop  Grower 

6787 

0.8 

To 

8.0 

0.5 



Royster’s  Wheat  Oats  & Barley  Fertilizer  ___  

6788 

0.8 

2.0 

8.0 

0.5 

Royster’s  Special  Fish  Guano 

6789 

0.8 

2.0 

11.0 

0.5 



Royster’s  Dreadnought  Fertilizer 

6791 

1.6 

2.0 

8.0 

0.5 



Royster’s  Wonder  Worker  Guano 

6792 

0.8 

3.0 

8.0 

0.5 



Royster's  Fish  Flesh  & Fowl 

6829 

1.6 

3.0 

8.0 

0.5 



Royster’s  Flamingo  Ammoniated  Superphosphate  ___ 

6830 

2.0 



12.0 

0.5 



Royster’s  Dependo  Grain  Grower _ 

6904 

0.4 

6.5 

13.0 

0.5 



Royster’s  Half  and  Half  Wheat  Fertilizer  __  _ 

6991 

0.4 

0.5 

8.0 

0.5 



Royster’s  Black  Soil  Guano 

7044 

0.8 

5.0 

8.0 

0.5 



Royster’s  Cloverdale  Grain  & Grass  Grower 

7125 

.... 

2.0 

10.0 

0.5 

Ruhm,  Jr.,  John,  Mt.  Pleasant,  Term. 

Ground  Phosphate  Rock  

4480 

— 

— 

— 

23.0 

Slover  Fertilizer  Company,  The  Edward,  Camden,  Ohio 

Half  Twelve  

6101 

0.4 

12.0  1 

1.0 

— 

97 


TABLE  VIII.— Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale  in  1918  (continued) 


TAbLt  VIM.  

Guaranteed  by  manufactur- 
ers to  contain  not  less  than 

Label 

Official  No. 

Nitrogen,  N, 

per  cent. 

Potash,  KoO,  soluble 

in  water,  per  cent. 

Soluble  and  reverted 

phosphoric  acid, 

PoOr,  per  cent. 

Insoluble  phosphoric 
acid,  Pj>05,  per  cent. 

Total  phosphoric 

acid,  P205,  per  cent. 

Smith  Agricultural  Chemical  Company,  The,  Indianapolis  Factory, 
Indianapolis,  Ind. 

5074 

8.0 

5075 

14.4 



— 

— 

— 

5337 

0.8 



— 

— 

27.0 

5525 





16.0 

— 

— 

6106 





14.0 

— 

— 

Alkaline  Phosphate -■  - - -— " 

6597 

0.8 



10.0 

— 

— 

Smith’s  No.  2 Crop  Producer  * 

6598 

6599 

1.6 

0.8 

To 

10.0 

7.0 

— 

:::: 

6601 

2.4 

1.0 

8.0 

— 

— 

Smith’s  No.  2 VegetaDie  <aio\\ei  __  , 

6602 

0.8 

1.0 

9.0 

Smith’s  No.  2 Ammoniated  Phosphate  & potasn — 

6603 

0.8 

1.0 

15.0 

1 

— 

6604 



3.0 

8.0 

— 

— 

Smith  $ Eight  Phrco  — - — - 

6624 





14.0 

— 

— 

6626 

1.6 

2.0 

8.0 

— 

— 

6740 

0.8 

3.0 

8.0 

— 

Smith’s  One-Eight-Three  ““  " " ' 

6902 

0.8 



12.0 

— 

— 

6971 

0.4 



12.0 



— 

6972 

0.8 



10.0 

— 

— 

6973 

1.6 



10.0 

— 

— 

Smith’s  No.  4 Crop  Producer  _____ 

Smith’s  No.  3 Corn  Oats  & Wheat  Fertilizer  

6975 

7115 

0.4 

0.8 

2.0 

1.0 

8.0 

8-° 

— 



Smith  s Wo.  4 Ammonidicu  x iiu&yiiatc  oo  xv^o-ou. 

7116 

1.6 

— 

12.0 

— 

Smith’s  No.  3 Crop  Producer  

7117 

— 

5.0 

5.0 

— 

7118 

0.4 

2.0 

8.0 

— 

Smith  s No.  l potasn  £ oi xuaia  

Southern  Fertilizer  Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

5486 

0.8 

1.0 

7.0 

1.0 

Elk  Corn  and  wneat  vjiuwei  

5487 

1.6 

2.0 

8.0 

1.0 

— 

5718 

0.4 

2.0 

11.0 

1.0 

— 

special  Ijrl  dill  ux  u vvtrx  

5906 

0.4 

1.0 

10.0 

1.0 

ii,lK  IjrGnGxai  Ijiup  uiuwci  -- 

6121 

0.8 

1.0 

7.0 

1.0 

— 

Elk  special  Lime  

-pn_  T«/4inr> n rPrvL o nnc\  o n H Trnnlr  fr r O W OT*  

6163 

1.6 

2.0 

8.0 

1.0 

— 

Elk  Indiana  j ouacco  diiu  nuui  

6245 





14.0 

1.0 

— 

6618 

1.6 

1.0 

8.0 

0.5 

— 

6990 





16.0 

0.5 

— 

Stadler  Rendering  & Fertilizer  Company,  J.  L.  & H.,  Cleveland,  Ohio 

5474 

2 8 

20.0 

O laQlGi  S x Uie  x>unt?  lricai  

6661 

0.8 

"l"6 

"61 

"6"5 

— 

VAerotohln  XV  ftrowP!*  

6662 

0.8 

0.5 

10.0 

0.7 

— 

vegeidDie  uidin  uiuwci  , 

6663 

1.6 

1.5 

10.0 

1.0 

— 

6664 

0.4 

1.0 

13.0 

1.0 

— 

Ammonialctl  xilUopiIdLt;  aixu  X 

6861 

0.8 



10.0 

1.0 



btaaier  S AIILinunid leU.  ixinu.  xnoaiJiiaic 

6862 

1.2 



12.0 

1.0 

— 

6863 

1.6 



10.0 

1.0 

— 

6914 

0.8 

3.0 

8.0 



— 

oiacn.cr  s union  uiuw cx  opctiax  _ - 

Q4-  o rllzm’cj  ■Rnrin  TVToqI  cinrl  A Picl  T^VlfWOh  t,G  _ 

7006 

1.4 



10.0 

8.0 

biaaier  s x>onc  ivicdi  diiu.  /xeiu.  x xxuoynatc 

Sterling  Fertilizer  Company,  The,  Chicago,  111. 

6091 

3.3 

21.0 

6092 

1.8 



28.0 

Qtorlinrr  1 (±07  A niH  PhnQTlhatfl  

6638 

To 





o lulling  ID  Vo  iALIU  x IlO^y  li  a to 

6639 

"61 

"11 

9.0 

To 



O lex  ling  kSpcCldl  or  I a 111  uxuncx  

6640 

1.6 

12.0 

2.0 



ft  Lori  in  rr  rjnlHnn  PPT’tilizPT'  — — 

. 6641 

0.8 

"61 

10.0 

2.0 



Olelllllg  OrOlUGn  xltU  Vcfel  x cx  

. 6643 

2.4 

1.0 

8.0 

2.0 



O lei  ling  xl  di  V co  L JXlllg  x cx  

Storlinrr’c  TT q 1 f Rr.  TTfllf  ‘Rrflrui  

6686 

0.8 

12.0 

11.0 



. 7012 

0.8 



10.0 

2.0 

. 7027 

1.6 

i.o 

12.0 

2.0 



Stolle  & Sons,  Anton,  Richmond,  Ind. 

Stolle’s  Animal  Fertilizer 

. 6147 

4.5 

L 





10.0 

98 

TABLE  VIII. — Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale  in  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  manufactur- 
ers to  contain  not  less  than 

Label 

6 

Z 

rt 

o 

E 

o 

z 

Bj 

® e 

£ u 
+->  u 
r*  ® 
Z ft 

0) 

£ . 

O 0) 
to  o 

O a; 

u 

*2 

H 

1 2.5 

T3 

® 

>£  ■ 
® 3 tj 

^ h c 

w <v 
o 

^ o ® 
® £ ft 
2 

B o o 

OJ3.c 
m a Oh 

o . 

ft  ® 

ft" 

S« 
* ft 
ft  5 
<s  0 

' I* 

: is 

c 

SS 

Ofe 

S £ 

|°- 

ftfL, 

3s 

H oj 

Swift  & Company,  Chicago,  111. 

Swift’s  Garden  City  Phosphate  __  

2716 

2755 

3058 

3889 

14.0 

Swift’s  Pure  Raw  Bone  Meal _ 

3~7 

3.7 

3.7 

13.1 
1.6 

2.5 
0.8 

15.2 
2.0 

1.6 
0.8 
0.8 
0.8 
1.6 
0.8 
0.8 
0.8 
1.6 
1.6 
0.4 



— 

OO  A 

Swift’s  Lawn  Fertilizer 

— 

— 

— 

60  .U 

23.0 

23.0 

Swift’s  Pure  Bone  Meal  & Blood  . 

— 

— 

— 

Swift’s  Ground  Dried  Blood _ _ 

4113 

4348 

4874 

5154 

5185 

5186 
5371 
5710 
5729 
5791 
5793 
6118 
6199 

— 

— 

— 

Swift’s  Ground  Steamed  Bone 

— 

— 

— 

20~0 

24.0 

Swift’s  Pure  Ground  Bone  Meal 

— 

— 

— 

Swift’s  Pure  Complete  Fertilizer  ___  

1 0 

Q A 

Swift’s  Nitrate  of  Soda _ 

l.u 

o . U 

± . u 

— 

Swift’s  Ground  Beef  Bone ___  

— 

— 

— 

2776 

Swift’s  Pure  Dissolved  Bone 

Swift’s  1—8—3  Fertilizer  

Pioneer  1—8—3  Fertilizer 

To 

3.0 

1.0 
1.0 
1.5 

To 

8.0 

8.0 

12.0 

11.0 

10.0 

13.0 

13.0 
8.0 

12.0 
10.0 
10.0 
12.0 

To 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

1.0 

11.0 

7.0 

7.0 

1.0 
1.0 

Swift’s  Diamond  K.  Grain  Grower  __  _ _ ___  _ 

Swift’s  Diamond  M.  Grain  Grower  _ 

Swift’s  Bone,  Phosphate  and  Potash 

Swifts  Bone  Meal  and  Phosphate 

Pioneer  Bone  Meal  & Phosphate 

6242 

Swift’s  Special  Superphosphate 

6366 

To 

Swift’s  Clay  Soil  Special 

6367 

6368 

Swift’s  — 10—1  Fertilizer  

1.0 

Swift’s  Ammoniated  Bone  Phosphate  & Potash 

6369 

1.6 

0.8 

0.5 

To 

0.5 

Swift’s  Tankage  and  Bone  Phosphate 

6370 

Swift’s  Dissolved  Animal  Bone-Potash  Mixture  __  _ ___ 

6371 

1.2 

To 

1.0 

16.0 

8.0 

12.0 

8.0 

8.0 

4.5. 

1.0 

1.0 

0.5 

1.0 

0.5 

Swift’s  Truck  Fertilizer  

6562 

2.4 

Pioneer  No.  5 Grain  Grower 

6611 

1.6 

Pioneer  No.  4 Grain  Grower  __  

6612 

0.8 

To 

1.0 

Pioneer  General  Crop  Grower  Special 

6613 

1.6 

Pioneer  Corn  and  Oats  Fertilizer 

6614 

6781 

6864 

6899 

6915 

0.8 

12.0 

14.0 

Pioneer  High  Grade  Acid  Phosphate 

— 

— 

Swift’s  Sheep  Manure  Fertilizer 

1.6 

To 

2.0 

Swift’s  1—8—2  Fertilizer __ 

o'.s 

1.6 

To 

6.0 

8.0 

13.0 

16.0 

~0~5 

10.0 

0.5 

7.0 

4.5 

Swift’s  Special  Half  and  Half  Fertilizer _ 

Swift’s  1—8—6  Fertilizer  

6916 

0.8 

0.8 

1.2 

To 

Swift’s  Bone  Meal  and  Phosphate  Fertilizer 

6932 

Swift’s  Dissolved  Animal  Bone— Potash  Fertilizer 

6934 

To 

Swift’s  Bone  Meal  and  Blood  Fertilizer  _ 

6935 

3.7 

1.6 

230 

20.0 

27.0 

Swift’s  Ground  Steamed  Bone  Fertilizer 

6936 

Swift’s  Ground  Beef  Bone  Fertilizer 

6937 

2.0 

1.6 

Swift’s  Wheat  and  Rye  Special 

6981 

To 

10.0 

To 

0.5 

Swift’s  1—10—1  Brand  _ 

7007 

0.8 

To 

Swift’s  Special  Bone  Meal  Fertilizer  ___  

7008 

7049 

7050 
7061 
7052 
7095 

PvQI  A 

0.8 

1.6 

0.8 

1.6 

2.4 

0.8 

9 A 

29.0 

Swift’s  2 — 10—1  Fertilizer  

To 

To 

10.0 

10.0 

8.0 

8.0 

To 

0.5 

1.0 

1.0 

0.5 

Swift’s  1—10—0  Fertilizer  

Swift’s  2—10—0  Fertilizer  

Swift’s  3 — 8 — 0 Fertilizer  

Swift’s  1 — 8 — 5 Fertilizer  

To 

Tennessee  Chemical  Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Ox  Fine  Raw  Bone  Meal  _ 

91  A 

Ox  Special  Grain  Grower  . _ 

Oo 

5717 

5992 

5993 

O d 

O A 

Q A 

A C 

Z-i  .U 

Ox  Dissolved  Bone  Phosphate  __  __ 

u . 

O.U 

O.U 

14.0 

u.  ?> 
0.5 

— 

Ox  Sixteen  Percent  _ ___ 

n ^ 

— 

Ox  Bone  Phosphate  & Potash  _ _ 

5994 

5995 

Ti 

0.2 

1.6 

1.6 

To 

2.0 

2.0 

2.0 

3.0 

2.0 
1.0 
1.0 

lO . u 

11  O 

u . 0 

O ^ 

— 

Ox  Ammoniated  Potash  Mixture 

11 . u 

12.0 

8.0 

10.0 

10.0 

8.0 

8.0 

8.0 

10.0 

v . O 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

Ox  Slaughter  House  Bone  & Phosphate  __ 

5996 

Ox  Ammoniated  Bone  Phosphate 

5997 

5999 

Ox  Special  Truck  Grower  

1.6 
0.4 
1.6 
0.4 
1.6 
3.7 
0.8  1 

Special  Grain  Grower  Formula 

6254 

6406 

6407 

6408 

0^5 

0.5 

Ox  Special  Slaughter  House  Bone  Phosphate 

Ox  Grain  Grower  Special 

Ox  Ammoniated  Phosphate  _ ___ 

v . 

0.5 

Ox  Standard  Raw  Bone 

6995 

22^0 

Ox  Harvester  _ 

7107 



To 

Ts 

99 


TABLE  VIII. — Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale  in  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  manufactur- 
ers to  contain  not  less  than 

Label 

6 

fc 

o3 

'3 

£ 

o 

Z 

c‘  • 

jog 

g u 
•2  u 

Z a 

© 

3 . 

o © 
to  © 

O © 

*2 
as 
(2 .6 

a 

© 

<D  ‘ 

>2  • 
£ o 

**  nj  C 

•a  © g 

§1  © 
©,a  a 

3 ft  ,* 

~ to  J® 
£ o O 

° ^ ac' 

m aCu 

0 , 

1 c 

z,  © 

gg. 

ft  St 

© o 

O rtf* 

W — < 

c 

Ofe 

W kO 

ftp, 
d rQ 

oo 

E-i  ej 

Tennessee  Coal,  Iron  & Railroad  Company,  Birmingham,  Ala. 

7143 

18.0 

United  Chemical  & Organic  Products  Company,  The,  Chicago,  111. 

6996 

14.0 

1.0 

6997 

0.8 

29.7 

6998 

3.7 

20.0 

6999 

0.4 

15.6 

§76 

7000 

0.6 

15.0 

1.0 

7001 

0.8 

”676 

10.0 

1.0 

7029 

0.8 

12.0 

1.0 

7030 

0.4 

To 

10.0 

1.0 

7031 

0.4 

12.0 

1.0 

7032 

0.8 

10.0 

1.0 

7033 

0.4 

"676 

8.0 

1.0 

7034 

2.0 

2§7o 

Calumet  Brand  Otto  Yoyles  Special __ 

7035 

7036 
7094 

0.6 

2.4 

8.0 

1.0 

6676 

o!6 

0.8 

0.5 

§76 

1.0 

Calumet  Special  Onion  & Truck  Grower 

7126 

3.0 

8.0 

1.0 

flalnmflt,  Indiana  Tnhflnrn  "Fertilizer 

7127 

5181 

5221 

5951 

6133 

6221 

6497 

6498 
6501 
6716 

6846 

6847 

6848 
7108 

5004 

4474 

6225 

6743 

0.6 

1.6 

0.8 

0.5 

2.0 

2.0 

8.5 

8.0 

8.0 

20.0 

16.0 

12.0 

13.0 

11.0 
8.0 

12.0 

14.0 
8.0 

10.0 
8.0 

1.0 

Virginia-Carolina  Chemical  Company,  Cincinnati  Division,  Cincinnati,  0. 
V-C  Complete  Fertilizer  - __  

Y-C  Champion  Corn  & Wheat  Grower 

— 

— 

V-C  20%  Acid  Phosphate __  _ __ 

V-C  16%  Acid  Phosphate  _ ___  _ _ __  _ _ 

— 

— 

V-C  Prolific  Grain  Grower  _ . 

To 

1.5 

V-C  Sure  Grain  Producer 

~67§ 

1.6 

0.8 

0.4 

1.5 

1 .5 

V-C  Rescue  Fertilizer  _ __ 

— 

— 

V-C  Complete  Manure _ _ __  . 

1.0 

1^5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

V-C  Richumus  Fertilizer 1 _ __  _ _ __ 

V-C  Red  Cross  14%  _ 

V-0  Farmers’  Friend  _ __  __  

"67§ 

0.8 

0.8 

2.5 

"376 

V-C  Bone  Meal  and  Phosphate  _ __ 

12.0 

1.5 

V-C  Old  Hickory  

To 

Wachtel  Rendering  Plant,  John,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Wachtels  Fertilizer __  _ _ ___________  _ __ 

16.0 

Weidman,  Augustus,  Hagerstown,  Ind. 

An  Acid  Phosphate  _ _ _ __  _ 

14.0 

12.0 
9.0 

“One-Twelve”  _ _ ___ 

Bone  and  Acid  Phosphate  ___  ______  __  _ 

To 

1.5 

— - 

”676 

9.0 

____ 

Western  Fertilizer  Works,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Wheat  and  Corn  Special  _ _ _ _ __ 

3397 

3398 

3400 

3401 
5760 
5768 
6227 
6262 

0.8 

0.4 

1.0 

8.0 

7.0 

12.0 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

Complete  Fertilizer _ _ 

1.0 

Acid  Phosphate  _ _ ___  

Bone  Meal  _ _ 

1.7 

2676 

Garden  Special  _ __  

1.6 

1.6 

1.2 

"176 

6676 

12.0 

10.0 

16.0 

12.0 

13.0 

14.0 

12.0 

13.0 

10.0 
12.0 
10.0 
11.0 

— 

Ammoniated  Mixture  . 

Available  Plant  Food  __  _ __.  _ __ 

_ 

16%  High  Grade  Phosphate __  ___  __  _ 

Corn  King  __  

6263 

"67§ 

0.4 

"676 

0.5 

Special  Spring  Fertilizer 

6264 

6365 

6691 

6692 
6970 
6987 

14%  Acid  Phosphate  __  

Special  Wheat  Fertilizer  ___  __  _ _ 

"678 

0.4 

0.8 

0.4 

0.4 

0.5 

"676 

0.5 

Special  Fall  Fertilizer 

Special  Wheat  Grower  _.  

To 

0.5 

Tankage  and  Phosphate  Special 

Ammoniated  Phosphate  _ _________  __  _ 

Wheat  & Clover  _ _ __  _ __ 

7134 

7145 

"676 

7777 

IOO 


TABLE  VIII. — Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale  in  1918  (continued) 


Label 

Official  No. 

Guaranteed  by  manufactur- 
ers to  contain  not  less  than 

Nitrogen,  N, 

per  cent. 

Potash,  KoO,  soluble 

in  water,  per  cent. 

Soluble  and  reverted 

phosphoric  acid, 

P205,  per  cent. 

Insoluble  phosphoric 

acid,  P2Ob,  per  cent. 

Total  phosphoric 

acid,  P205,  per  cent. 

Woodward  & Dickerson,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Acid  Phosphate  __  

6131 





14.0 





Nitrate  of  Soda  __  ._ _ . __  . 

6132 

14.8 

.... 

— 

Worm  & Company,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Eureka  Garden  Fertilizer 

6731 

6.0 

0.3 

— - 

8.0 

Wuichet  Fertilizer  Company,  The,  Dayton,  Ohio 

16%  Acid  Phosphate 

6243 





16.0 

1.0 

E.  E.  Ruby  _• 

7119 

6.4 

11.0 

1.0 

Superior  Bone  

7120 

3.0 

2o"o 

E.  E.  Ammonia  Special  

7121 

0.8 



ioTo 

"i"o 

E.  E.  Raw  Bone  & Phosphate  _ ... __  

7122 

1.5 



8.0 

6.0 

E.  E.  Spot  Cash  ..  1-  

7123 

0.8 

1.0 

8.0 

1.0 

— 

IOI 


INDEX 


Page 

Action  of  plant  foods IS 

Attention  purchasers  of  fertilizers 35 

Borax,  injury,  caused  by 16 

Comparative  results  by  manufacturers’ 

chemists  33 

Equivalent  values  5 

Explanation  of  tables  34 

Explanation  of  terms — 

General  10 

Chemical  12 

Fertilizer  map.  Towns  added  in  1917 18 

Guarantees  14 

Handling  and  storing  fertilizer 5 

Indiana  Fertilizer  Law 3 

Administration  7 

Summarized  for  agents  and  dealers 4 

Summarized  for  consumers  5 

Summarized  for  manufacturers 3 

State  Chemist’s  label  6 

Information,  special 33 

Inspection — 

Classification  brands,  deficient  in  value.—  27 

Classification,  deficient  brands  27 

Discussion  of  results,  1917 28 

Method  of  obtaining  inspections 7,  8 

Report  of  1917  inspection 22 

Summary  of  results,  spring  and  fall 23 


Page 


Summary  of  results  by  classes 26 

Summary  of  results,  18  years,  1900-17 23 

Summary,  spring  and  fall  samples,  1917—  24 

Prices  28 

Purchasing  fertilizer 22 

Refunds  30 

Sales  18 

Sampling  instructions  for  inspectors 9 

Shipments  returned 32 

Shipments  withdrawn  from  sale 31 

Shipments  sold  under  names  indicating 

animal  by-products 32 

Slater’s  Slag  17 

Standing  of  manufacturers 22 

Tables— 

I  Summary  inspection  samples  by 

classes  26 

II  Summary  of  manufacturers  by 

analysis,  spring,  1917 36 

III  Summary  of  manufacturers  by 

analysis,  fall,  1917 38 

IV  Summary  of  manufacturers  by 

analysis,  1917  40 

V  Summary  of  samples  by  counties,  1917.  42 

VI  Details  of  inspection  results 44 

VII  Rock  phosphate,  fineness SO 

VIII  Manufacturers  and  brands  on  sale,  1918  81 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


Inspection 

Fine- 

ness 

Brands 

certified 

on 

sale 

Manufacturer 

Sum- 

maries 

Details 

Alphano  Humus  Co.  _ _ 

81 

American  Agricultural  Chemical  Co.,  The,  New  York 

American  Agricultural  Chemical  Co.,  The., 

Bowker  Fertilizer  Works  ...  _ .. 

81 

40 

44 

81 

American  Agricultural  Chemical  Co.,  The., 

Detroit  Sales  Department  _ 

40 

46 

81 

American  Agricultural  Chemical  Co.,  The., 

Great  Eastern  Branch  _ __ 

40 

46 

82 

American  Agricultural  Chemical  Co.,  The., 

Michigan  Carbon  Works  . 

40 

46 

82 

American  Agricultural  Chemical  Co.,  The., 

Western  Union  Chemical  Co.,  Branch  _ ...  

40 

47 

» 

American  Agricultural  Chemical  Co.,  The., 

M.  E.  Wheeler  & Co.,  Branch 

40 

47 

/ ■ 

82 

American  Basie  Phosphate  Co.,  The 

40 

48 

83 

Armour  Fertilizer  Works  . __  __  _ __ 

40 

48 

83 

Ballard  Packing  Co. _ 

40 

50 

83 

Baushaek  & Sons,  Robert 

40 

50 

83 

Buhner  Fertilizer  Co. 

40 

50 

80 

83 

Central  Phosphate  Co. 

84 

Chicago  Feed  & Fertilizer  Co. 

84 

Chicago  Raw  Products  Co.  ..  

40 

01 

84 

Cincinnati  Phosphate  Co. _ . 

40 

51 

84 

Clendenin  Fertilizer  Co.  

40 

51 

84 

Cleveland  Provision  Co. 

85 

Darling  & Company 

40 

52 

85 

D.  & K.  Fertilizer  Co.  . 

40 

52 

86 

Dryfus  Packing  & Provision  Co.  _ __ 

85 

Eckart  Packing  Co. ...  . 

40 

'53 

86 

Empire  Carbon  Works 

40 

53 

82,  85 

Empire  Gnano  Co. 

40 

53 

86 

Evansville  Packing  Co. _ 

40 

54 

86 

Everitt’s  Seed  Store  _ . ___  

86 

Ewing,  Geo.  M. ...  _ __ 

86 

Farmers  Fertilizer  Co.,  Columbus,  Ohio 

40 

54 

Farmers  Fertilizer  Co.,  Indianapolis,  Ind.  - 

40 

54 

86 

Farmers  Ground  Rock  Phosphate  Co. 

40 

55 

80 

Federal  Chemical  Co.  — . 

40 

55 

80 

87 

88 

Fertile  Chemical  Co.  _ 

Fertilizer  Co.,  Paris,  111. 

88 

102' 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  (continued) 


Manufacturer 

Inspection 

Fine- 

ness 

Brands 

certified 

on 

sale 

Sum- 

maries 

Details 

Fessenden,  F.  L.  __  _ __  __  _ 

88 

Fluhrer  Tobacco  & Snuff  On. 

40 

57 

88 

Fox  Chemical  Co. __  __ 

40 

57 

88 

Gleaner  Clearing  House  Association  _ 

89 

Globe  Fertilizer  Co. _ __  

40 

57 

Goldreich  Fertilizer  Co. 

40 

59 

90 

Goodrich,  W.  J.  _ _ _ 

40 

'59 

90 

Groves  Fertilizer  Works  (The  .Toslin-Sehmidt  On.') 

41 

59 

90 

Hancock  Fertilizer  Co.,  Inc. 

90 

Hess  & Bro.,  S.  M.  ’ 

41 

69 

90 

91 

Hirsh,  Stein  & On.,  . 

41 

60 

41 

61 

91 

Hnhhell  Fertilizer  Co.,  L.  W. 

41 

61 

Hurst  & Co.  

91 

41 

02 

91 

41 

62 

91 

41 

62 

International  Agricultural  Corporation,  Cincinnati,  Ohio.— 

41 

63 

91 

92 

41 

63 

92 

41 

64 

41 

64 

92 

41 

05 

92 

Kentucky  Fertilizer  Co.,  Branch  Federal  Chemical  Co._ 

41 

65 

93 

Firke  Chemical  On 

93 

Louisville  Fertilizer  Co.  _ __  - 

41 

06 

93 

Major  Bros.  Packing  Co.  _ - - --  

41 

67 

94 

McCartney  Bros. 

94 

Morris  «&;  Onmpany 

41 

67 

94 

Mt  Pleasant  Fertilizer  On.  ._ 

41 

68 

80 

National  Plant.  Fnnd  On 

94 

Nier|erhaUS;  Fred 

41 

68 

Nitrate  Agencies  On  , Western  Branch 

41 

68 

94 

Packer  Fertilizer  On  , Indianapolis 

41 

68 

95 

Packers  Fertilizer  Co.,  Cincinnati 

41 

69 

95 

Pearl  Packing  House  The  

95 

Pero  &■  8t.np.ckcr  __  _ . 

41 

69 

95 

Pnlyerized  Manure.  On.  __  _ _ 

41 

69 

95 

Basin-Monumental  on. 

41 

09 

95 

Bailh  & Sons  Fertilizer  Oh.,  F. 

41 

70 

95 

P.ead  Phosphate  On.  _ 

41 

71 

96 

Royster  Guano  Co  F.  S. 

41 

• 72 

96 

Ruhm,  Jr.,  John  . 

41 

73 

80 

96 

Sloyer  Fertilizer  On.  _ 

41 

73 

96 

Smith  Agricultural  Ohemical  On. 

41 

73 

97 

Southern  Fertilizer  On.  _ 

41 

74 

97 

StadW  Fertilizer  fr,  Rendering  On. 

41 

74 

97 

Sterling  Fertilizer  Co.  - - 

41 

75 

97 

Stoll p Sons  Anton  _ 

97 

(Swift-  ^ Onmpany 

41 

75 

98 

fpennespec  Ohemical  On.  _ 

41. 

77 

98 

Tennessee  Onal  Oh.  

99 

Tuscarora  Fertilizer  Oo.  - - - 

41 

77 

United  Chemical  & Organic  Products  f!ot)  The 

41 

77 

99 

Virginia- Carolina  Chemical  Co.  

41 

77 

99 

Wachtel  Rendering  Oh  

99 

Weidman  Aufiistus  - 

41 

79 

99 

Western  Fertilizer  Works  - 

41 

79 

99 

Woodward  &•  Picke^s^n  

160 

Worm  Oompany  __  _ _ 

100 

Wuichet  Fertilizer  Oo  , Che  - 

41 

79 

100 

3 0.7 


Su^ 


PURDUE  UNIVERSITY 

Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


Bulletin  No.  216 
May,  1918 


COMMERCIAL  FEEDS  REGISTERED  FOR  SALE 
IN  INDIANA,  MAY  1,  1918 


Published  by  the  Station: 
LAFAYETTE,  INDIANA 
U.  S.  A. 


PURDUE  UNIVERSITY  AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 


BOARD  OF  CONTROL 
Joseph  D.  Oliver.  President.  South  Bend 


Fay  S.  Chandler Indianapolis 

Charles  Downing  Greeniield 

John  A.  Hillenbrand Batesville 

Cyrus  M.  Hobbs Bridgeport 


Winthrop  E.  Stone,  A.  M.,  Ph.  D 


Warren  T.  McCray Kentland 

James  W.  Noel Indianapolis 

Andrew  E.  Reynolds Crawfordsville 

William  V.  Stuart LaFayette 


.President  of  the  University 


ADVISORY  COMMITTEE 
(Under  Legislative  Act  of  1909) 

John  G.  Brown,  Monon D.  B.  Johnson,  Mooresville 

State  Live  Stock  Association  State  Dairy  Association 

U.  R.  Fishel,  Hope D.  F.  Maish,  Frankfort 

State  Poultry  Fanciers'  Association  State  Corn  Growers'  Association 

F.  J.  Heacock,  Salem Indiana  Horticultural  Society 


ADMINISTRATION 

Charles  G.  Woodbury,  M.  S.,  Director 

Harry  J.  Reed Assistant  to  the  Director 

Nellie  Tracy Administrative  Assistant 

Mary  K.  Bloom Bookkeeper 

AGRICULTURAL  EXTENSION 
George  I.  Christie,  B.  S.  A.,  Superintendent 

Thomas  A.  Coleman Ass’t  State  Leader 

Field  Studies  and  Demonstrations 

George  M.  Frier,  B.  S.  A Associate  in 

Charge  of  Short  Courses  and  Exhibits 
Mabel  L.  Harlan. .Ass’t  in  Agricultural  Extension 

ANIMAL  HUSBANDRY 
John  H.  Skinner,  B.  S.,  Chief 

Chester  G.  Starr,  B.  S.  A 

Acting  Associate  in  Animal  Husbandry 

Herbert  E.  McCartney,  B.  S.  A 

Ass’t  in  Animal  Husbandry  Extension 

BOTANY 

Herbert  S.  Jackson,  a.  B..  Chief 

George  N.  Hoffer,  M.  S Associate  in  Botany 

Luna  E.  Allison,  B.  S Assistant  in  Botany 

Edwin  B.  Mains,  Ph.  D Assistant  in  Botany 

Harry  R.  Rosen,  M.  S.,  Assistant  in  Rust  Work 

Grace  O.  Wineland,  a.  B.,  M.  S 

Assistant  in  Botany 

DAIRY  HUSBANDRY 
Ralph  E.  Caldwell,  B.  S.,  Acting  Chief 

Howard  W.  Gregory,  B.  S 

Associate  in  Dairy  Manufactures 

George  Spitzer,  Ph.  G..  B.  S 

Associate  in  Dairy  Chemistry 

Harry  M.  Weeter,  M.  S 

Associate  in  Dairy  Bacteriology 

Turner  H.  Broughton,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Creamery  Inspection 

William  F.  Epple,  Ph.  G 

Assistant  in  Dairy  Chemistry 

Hubert  W.  Fleisher,  B.  S.  A 

Assistant  in  Creamery  Inspection 

ENTOMOLOGY 
James  Troop,  M.  S.,  Chief 
Preston  W.  Mason,  B.  S.,  Ass’t  in  Entomology 

HORTICULTURE 
Laurenz  Greene,  M.  S.  A.,  Chief 

Harry  A.  Noyes,  M.  S Associate  in 

Horticultural  Chemistry  and  Bacteriology 
Joseph  Oskamp,  B.  S..  Associate  in  Pomology 

Walter  A.  Huelson,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Horticulture 

Raymond  A.  Nehf,  B.  S.  A 

Assistant  in  Horticulture 


POULTRY  HUSBANDRY 
Allen  G.  Philips,  R.  S.  A.,  Chief 

Dwight  C.  Kennard,  Ph.  C.,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Husbandry 

Lewis  H.  Schwartz,  B.  S.  A 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Husbandry 

SOILS  AND  CROPS 
Alfred  T.  Wiancko,  B.  S.  A.,  Chief 

Martin  L.  Fisher,  M.  S 

Assistant  Chief  in  Soils  and  Crops 

Samuel  D.  Conner,  M.  S 

Associate  Chemist  in  Soils  and  Crops 

Clinton  O.  Cromer,  B.  S Associate  in  Crops 

Sadocie  C.  Jones.  M.  S Associate  in  Soils 

Ernest  N.  Fergus,  M.  Sc 

Assistant  in  Soils  and  Crops 

STATE  CHEMIST 

Wm.  J.  Jones,  Jr.,  M.  S.,  A.  C.3  State  Chemist 
Edward  G.  Proulx,  M.  S.L.Acting  State  Chemist 
Reuben  O.  Bitler,  B.  S.2.... Deputy  State  Chemist 

Paul  B.  Curtis,  B.  S.2 Deputy  State  Chemist 

Omar  W.  Ford,  A.  B.2 Deputy  State  Chemist 

Mary  J.  Minton,  B.  S.2 Assistant 

Microscopist  State  Chemist’s  Department 
Herman  J.  Nimitz,  B.  S.2.. Deputy  State  Chemist 
J.  Howard  Roop,  B.  S.2....Deputy  State  Chemist 

Samuel  F.  Thornton,  B.  S.2 

Deputy  State  Chemist 

Otis  S Roberts,  B.  S.2 

Chief  Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

Glen  G.  Carter,  B.  S.2 

Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

Benjamin  F.  Catherwood2 

Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

William  B.  Tiedt 

Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

VETERINARY  SCIENCE 
Robert  A.  Craig,  D.  V.  M.,  Chief 
David  B.  Clark,  D.  M.  C... Associate  Veterinarian 

Lawrence  C.  Kigin,  D.  V.  M 

Associate  Veterinarian 

Rex  A.  Whiting,  D.  V.  M 

Associate  in  Animal  Pathology 

Carl  H.  Clink,  B.  S Ass’t  in  Serum  Production 

Leo  P.  Doyle,  B.  S Ass’t  in  Animal  Pathology 

Leslie  R.  George,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Animal  Pathology 
Fred  L.  Walkey,  D.  V.  M Ass’t  Veterinarian 

DETAILED  BY  U.  S.  DEPARTMENT  OF 
AGRICULTURE 

Cereal  and  Forage  Crop  Insect  Investigations 
John  J.  Davis.  B.  S..  Entomological 
Assistant  in  Charge 

John  M.  Aldrich,  Ph.  D.,  Entomological  Assistant 

Walter  H.  Larrimer.  B.  S Scientific  Assistant 

Dean  A.  Ricker,  B.  S Scientific  Assistant 

Chester  F.  Turner,  B.  S Scientific  Assistant 

Seed  Testing 

Anna  M.  Lute,  M.  A Seed  Analyst 


1 In  charge  of  Fertilizer  and  Feeding  Stuff  Control 

2 Connected  with  Fertilizer  and  Feeding  Stuff  Control 

3 Died  August  31.  1917 


COMMERCIAL  FEEDS  REGISTERED  FOR  SALE 
IN  INDIANA,  MAY  1,  1918 


E.  G.  Proulx 

J.  H.  Roop  H.  J.  Nimitz  Mary  J.  Minton  P.  B.  Curtis  O.  S.  Roberts 

The  necessity  of  keeping  more  live  stock  on  the  farms  of  the  coun- 
try has  created  an  increased  demand  for  feeding  stuffs. 

The  conditions  resulting  from  the  frosted  corn  crop,  the  many 
changes  in  the  milling  of  flour,  the  lack  of  sufficient  transportation,  the 
direct  haul  and  required  full  car  loads,  have  compelled  feeders  to  seek 
many  substitute  feeds  from  unfamiliar  sources. 

The  State  Chemist,  realizing  the  needs  of  the  feeders  of  Indiana, 
has  prepared  the  included  registration  list  of  all  brands  of  commercial 
feeding  stuffs  certified  by  manufacturers  as  being  on  sale  in  the  State 
in  1918.  This  list  formerly  appeared  as  Table  VII  in  the  annual  com- 
mercial feed  bulletin  of  the  Experiment  Station,  but  is  issued  thus  in  ad- 
vance of  the  usual  time  to  give  the  feeders  of  Indiana  all  information 
possible  in  their  selection  of  substitute  feeds  for  use  during  the  current 
season. 

The  failure  of  any  manufacturer  to  appear  in  this  certified  list  does 
not  prevent  a registered  brand  being  placed  on  sale,  but  merely  indicates 
that  no  reply  to  the  annual  letter  of  inquiry  concerning  contemplated 
registrations  for  1918,  has  been  received  from  the  manufacturer  by  the 
State  Chemist. 

Consumers  are  earnestly  requested  to  utilize  this  bulletin  as  a supple- 
ment to  Bulletin  No.  209,  “Commercial  Feeding  Stuffs.”  Having  decided 
on  the  brands  of  feeds  desired  in  the  registration  table,  the  latest  annual 
bulletin  in  which  is  given  the  analyses  of  these  same  brands,  from  samples 
collected  and  examined  by  deputies  appointed  by  the  State  Chemist,  may 
be  consulted. 

Cooperate  by  ordering  full  carloads  by  shortest  direct  haul. 

To  Agents,  Dealers,  Distributors  and  Consumers. — In  accord- 
ance with  the  provisions  of  the  law  governing  the  registration  and  sale  of 
concentrated  commercial  feeding  stuffs,  all  brands  of  feeding  stuffs  offered 
for  sale  in  Indiana  are  certified  by  the  manufacturers  before  a notary 
public  or  justice  of  the  peace,  to  contain  the  minimum  guarantee  of  crude 
fat  and  crude  protein,  the  maximum  guarantee  of  crude  fiber  and  the 
common  names  of  all  materials  used  in  manufacturing  the  feed. 

These  certificates  properly  made  out  and  attested  are  retained  on 
file  at  the  Experiment  Station  and  State  Chemist’s  labels  are  furnished 
the  manufacturer  corresponding  to  his  sworn  statement. 

Agents  and  consumers  should  note  when  purchasing  feed  tnat  the 
guarantee  on  the  State  Chemist’s  label  is  the  guarantee  of  the  manufac- 
turer and  not  of  the  State  Chemist,  whose  duty  it  is  to  make  certain  that 
manufacturers  maintain  their  guarantees. 

Labels. — The  only  label  recognized  as  legal  under  the  law  is  that 
bearing  the  fac  simile  signature  of  the  State  Chemist  or  Acting  State 
Chemist. 


4 


Do  not  accept,  offer  or  expose  for  sale,  sell,  deliver  or  distribute  any 
package  or  any  quantity  of  commercial  feeding  stuff  which  does  not  have 
attached  or  which  is  not  accompanied  by  one  such  label  for  each  ioo 
pounds  or  fraction. 

Fractional  Sales. — All  sales  of  i,  2,  5,  10,  15,  etc.,  pounds  must  be 
accompanied  by  the  State  Chemist’s  label  even  though  the  sale  is  made 
from  a larger  labeled  package  or  container. 

Unlabeled  Shipments. — Do  not  accept  shipments  with  State  Chem- 
ist’s labels  unattached  or  sent  separately  by  mail  unless  privilege  of  ex- 
amining shipment  before  acceptance  is  specified  in  bill  of  lading.  Inves- 
tigation by  the  State  Chemist’s  Department  indicates  that  a few  brokers 
are  using  this  method  to  sell  and  invoice  one  product  and  ship  another. 
This  seems  especially  prevalent  in  the  brokerage  of  mill  by-products  where 
in  a number  of  cases,  pure  wheat  bran  has  been  invoiced  and  wheat  bran 
and  screenings  furnished.  Stipulate  that  the  State  Chemist’s  labels  are 
to  be  attached  to  each  and  every  package  before  shipment  and  if  any  good 
reason  exists  for  not  attaching,  that  examination  of  shipment  must  be 
permitted  before  acceptance.  In  some  cases,  which  however,  are  few, 
good  reasons  may  exist  for  the  non-attaching  of  the  State  Chemist’s 
labels  but  no  manufacturer  or  broker  who  ships  what  he  sells  and  fulfills 
his  contracts  will  object  to  any  reasonable  examination  of  such  shipments. 

Purchasing  Feeds. — -Do  not  contract  for  feeding  stuffs  on  the  basis 
of  private  label  guarantees  or  advertising  matter,  but  on  the  official  legal 
guarantee,  and  include  the  registration  number  in  contract.  When  ship- 
ments are  received,  examine  the  labels  attached  to  insure  that  they  are 
the  labels  and  feed  contracted  for.  If  labels  are  not  in  accord  with  con- 
tract, refuse  shipment  until  a satisfactory  explanation  is  furnished  for  the 
discrepancy.  Communicating  with  the  State  Chemist  regarding  such  ship- 
ments, by  telephone  or  telegraph,  will  undoubtedly  be  to  your  advantage 
both  from  the  standpoint  of  time  and  money. 

Short  Weight  Shipments. — The  law  requires  that  the  net  weight 
of  the  packages  be  guaranteed  and  maintained.  If  short  weight  shipments 
are  suspected,  weigh  not  less  than  20  packages  on  a scale  previously  test- 
ed and  balanced  and  if  a shortage  of  one  pound  or  more  per  100  is  found, 
do  not  remove  the  balance  of  the  shipment  from  the  car,  but  notify  the 
State  Chemist  so  that  an  inspector  may  be  sent  to  make  an  official  in- 
spection. 

Samples. — If  an  inspection  is  desired,  do  not  forward  samples,  but 
write  to  the  State  Chemist,  giving  the  number  on  the  official  label,,  name  of 
the  feeding  stuff,  name  of  manufacturer,  amount  on  hand  and  special 
reason,  if  any,  for  desiring  the  inspection.  If  the  amount  present  is  suffi- 
cient to  give  a representative  sample,  and  a large  number  of  samples  of 
the  same  brand  have  not  already  been  secured,  an  inspector  will  be  sent 
to  take  an  official  sample.  If  you  are  in  doubt  regarding  any  manufac- 
turer or  feeding  stuff,  write  for  information.  The  State  Chemist  is  alzuays 
ready  to  serve  and  advise. 

Freight  Bills  and  Invoices. — Retain  freight  bills  and  invoices  on 
all  shipments,  especially  interstate,  so  that  the  information  necessary  to 
trace  the  shipment  to  the  original  consigner  may  be  available.  This  infor- 


5 


mation  is  essential  for  cooperative  work  with  the  United  States  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture. 

Rounds. — Attention  is  called  to  the  fact  that  the  payment  of  a re- 
fund has  absolutely  no  bearing  on  the  action  the  State  Chemist’s  De- 
partment may  take  under  the  law  for  violation  of  its  provisions.  If  refund 
for  deficiency  is  received,  the  same  should  be  distributed  to  the  actual  pur- 
chasers of  the  feed,  on  the  basis  of  amount  purchased  and  price  paid.  Re- 
ceipts showing  the  refund  paid  and  date  of  payment  should  be  secured 
from  each  one  to  whom  refund  is  paid  and  filed  with  the  State  Chemist. 
While  the  payment  of  a refund  does  not  meet  the  requirements  of  the  law, 
in  many  cases  it  shows  the  good  intentions  of  the  manufacturer. 

When  inspection  results  are  reported,  with  the  information  that  feed- 
ing stuff  in  your  possession  does  not  meet  the  requirements  of  the  law, 
withdraw  it  from  sale  and  notify  the  State  Chemist  of  the  amount  and 
date  of  withdrawal.  Failure  to  accept  such  advice  will  necessitate  a re- 
port to  the  prosecutor  of  wilful  violation. 

Full  text  of  the  law  and  ruling  will  be  furnished  on  request. 

THE  STATE  CHEMIST’S  LABEL 

The  official  label,  a reproduction  of  which  follows,  is  always  printed, 
contains  all  the  information  required  by  law,  and  the  fac-simile  signature 
of  the  State  Chemist.  It  is  absolutely  necessary  and  no  other  label  should 
be  accepted. 

° \ 

$50  fine  for  using  this  tag  second  time 

No.  9 

Net  Weight  100  Pounds 

JOHN  DOE  & CO., 
of  LaFayette,  Ind., 

Guarantee  this 

DOE’S  MIXED  FEED 

to  contain  not  less  than 
3.5  per  cent,  of  crude  fat, 

14.0  per  cent,  of  crude  protein, 
not  more  than 

10.0  per  cent,  of  crude  fiber, 
and  to  be  compounded  from  the 

following  ingredients: 

Wheat  Bran,  Middlings,  Ground  Wheat 
Screenings  and  Corn  Bran 

£ 

Acting  State  Chemist, 

Purdue  University  Agricultural 
Experiment  Station  LaFayette,  Ind. 

Not  good  for  more  than  100  pounds. 


6 


The  consumer  should  bear  in  mind  that  the  accepted  guarantee  does 
not  of  necessity  imply  quality,  and  that  it  is  simply  intended  as  a guide  to 
the  purchaser.  Inferior  goods  may  be  legally  sold  if  correctly  guaranteed. 
Close  attention  should  be  given  to  the  list  of  ingredients  contained  in  the 
feed,  which  is  printed  on  the  labels. 

Condimental  Feeds. — Under  the  present  rulings  of  the  State  Chem- 
ist, this  term  is  defined  to  include — any  mixture  having  as  a base,  filler 
or  diluent,  any  material  of  feeding  value  such  as  wheat  bran,  middlings, 
screenings,  flaxseed  meal,  linseed  meal,  etc.,  or  any  of  the  materials  used 
as  adulterants  for  feeding  stuffs,  such  as  corn  cob  meal,  oat  hulls,  peanut 
hulls,  etc.,  together  with  condiments,  herbs  or  drugs,  one  or  all,  without 
regard  to  names  or  claims  under  which  they  are  sold.  All  preparations 
sold  as  stock  or  poultry  foods  or  feeds,  conditioners,  relishes,  tonics,  reg- 
ulators, powders,  egg  producers,  etc.,  if  compounded  as  above,  as  well 
as  all  preparations  sold  under  the  name  of  food  or  feed  or  a similar  term 
or  with  claims  for  nutritive  properties  either  on  package  or  advertising 
matter,  come  under  the  law  and  must  be  registered  and  labeled  when  of- 
fered or  exposed  for  sale,  sold  or  distributed  in  Indiana. 

Legal  opinions  have  been  received  that  the  interpretation  of  the  term 
condimental  feed  as  used  in  the  law  can  properly  be  broadened  to  include 
all  materials  used  as  food  adjuncts  for  animals,  and  the  issuing  of  a rul- 
ing to  this  effect  is  under  consideration. 

In  general,  these  preparations  are  composed  of  some  ordinary  feeding 
stuff  or  feeding  stuff  adulterant  as  a base  or  carrier,  together  with  some 
common  cathartic,  generally  Glauber’s  salts  or  sometimes  Epsom  salts, 
and  appetizers,  gentian,  fenugreek,  ginger,  common  salt,  anise,  with 
small  amounts  of  worm  seed,  poke  root,  copperas,  sulphur,  etc. 

In  many  cases  after  the  passage  of  the  Feeding  Stuffs  Control  law, 
names,  claims  and  methods  of  compounding  were  changed  and  the  feeding 
stuff  base  omitted,  salt,  Glauber’s  salts,  and  similar  cheap  materials  being 
used  in  larger  amounts  and  some  of  the  largest  sellers  on  the  market  today 
contain  go  per  cent,  and  over  of  common  salt.  Most  of  the  latter  are 
not  registered  under  the  law. 

As  stated  in  previous  bulletins,  the  large  majority  of  properly  con- 
ducted experiments  fails  to  show  profitable  results  from  the  use  of  these 
preparations  but  those  who  wish  to  use  them  are  requested,  both  as  co- 
operating with  the  State  Chemist  and  for  their  own  protection,  to  pur- 
chase those  condimental  brands  which  are  registered,  and  thus  obtain  the 
protection  which  the  law  affords. 

Call  on  the  State  Chemist  and  ask  to  have  your  feed  inspected  if 
you  have  any  reason  to  believe  the  feed  in  question  is  injurious  to  the 
health  of  animals. 

NEW  FEEDS  ON  SALE 

*Barley  Mixed  Feed  with  Ground  Barley  Screenings  with  In- 
gredients Stated  as  Barley  Hulls,  Barley  Bran,  Barley  Middlings 
and  Ground  Barley  Screenings. — In  the  milling  of  barley  flour  for  hu- 
man consumption,  in  the  mills  inspected  by  representatives  of  the  State 
Chemist’s  Department, thebarley  screenings  are  removed  at  the  start  of  the 
process,  and  the  cleaned  barley  is  then  run  through  the  ordinary  wheat 
flour  mill  or  rye  flour  mill  and  the  barley  flour  taken  out.  The  product 


7 


remaining,  namely  barley  hulls,  bran  and  middlings  is  mixed  with  the 
ground  barley  screenings  originally  taken  out ; the  resultant  product  is 
sold  in  Indiana  with  the  brand  name  and  with  ingredients  given  as  bar- 
ley hulls,  barley  bran,  barley  middlings  and  ground  barley  screenings. 

*BarlEy  Mill  Fled  with  Ground  Barley  Screenings. — This  term 
is  similar  to  barley  mixed  feed  with  ground  barley  screenings  and  is 
optional  with  the  manufacturer.  . 

In  general,  materials  of  this  nature  are  sold  in  Indiana  under  guar- 
antees of  2 to  3 per  cent,  of  crude  fat;  8 to  io  per  cent,  of  crude  protein, 
and  not  to  contain  over  18  to  25  per  cent,  of  crude  fiber. 

VELVET  BEAN  PRODUCTS 

* Velvet  Bean  Feed  is  the  dried  ground  velvet  beans  and  pods. 

* Velvet  Bean  Meal  is  the  dried  ground  velvet  bean  and  cannot  con- 
tain the  ground  pods. 

Several  brands  of  velvet  bean  feed  are  now  registered  with  the  State 
Chemist’s  Department  and  appear  in  the  list  on  page  86.  In  general,  this 
product  is  guaranteed  to  contain  4 per  cent,  crude  fat,  16  to  18  per  cent, 
crude  protein  and  15  to  20  per  cent,  crude  fiber. 

Velvet  bean  meal  is  not  offered  for  sale  in  Indiana  at  this  time. 

*Corn  Mill  Feed  is  all  of  the  mill  run  by-product  produced  in  the 

manufacture  of  corn  meal  or  corn  flour  from  cleaned  shelled  corn  and 
consists  of  corn  bran,  corn  germ  and  some  meal. 

*Delinted  Cottonseed  Hulls  is  the  product  resulting  from  the  en- 
tire removal  of  all  particles  of  lint  from  the  outer  portion  of  the  cotton- 
seed hulls.  When  added  to  cottonseed  meal  or  mixed  with  other  feeds, 

the  ground  or  unground  delinted  cottonseed  hulls,  must  be  listed  as  an 

ingredient. 

Corn  cob  meal,  peanut  hull  meal  and  delinted  cottonseed  hulls  have 
a very  high  percentage  of  crude  fiber  and  contain  somewhat  less  digest- 
ible nutrients  than  oat  straw,  and  only  a very  great  scarcity  of  home 
grown  roughage  can  ever  justify  their  purchase  in  Indiana. 

Hominy  feed  now  on  the  Indiana  market  is  of  three  types  as  follows : 

1.  Hominy  feed  with  the  mill  run  bran,  germ  and  soft  meal. 

2.  »Hominy  feed  with  much  of  the  germ  removed. 

3.  Hominy  feed  with  part  of  the  oil  extracted. 

PEANUT  PRODUCTS 

Definitions  adopted  by  the  Association  of  Feed  Control  Officials  of 
the  United  States  and  accepted  by  the  State  Chemist. — 

Peanut  Oil  Cake  is  the  residue  after  the  extraction  of  part  of  the  oil 
by  pressure  or  solvents  from  peanut  kernels. 

Peanut  Oil  Meal  is  the  ground  residue  after  the  extraction  of  part 
of  the  oil  from  peanut  kernels. 

Unhulled  Peanut  Oil  Feed  is  the  ground  residue  obtained  after  ex- 
traction of  part  of  the  oil  from  whole  peanuts,  and  the  ingredients  shall 
be  designated  as  Peanut  Meal  and  Hulls. 

% 

‘When  definitions  are  not  available  from  the  Association  of  Feed  Control  Officials  of 
the  United  States,  the  materials  are  defined  in  accordance  with  the  best  information  obtain- 
able by  the  State  Chemist.  Definitions  not  from  the  A.  F.  C.  O.  are  marked  with  an 

asterisk  (*). 


8 


Peanut  oil  cake  and  peanut  oil  meal  are  not  registered  with  the  State 
Chemist’s  Department  as  being  on  sale  in  Indiana,  although  successfully 
used  as  a feed  in  southern  states. 

Unhulled  peanut  oil  feeds  as  registered  with  the  State  Chemist, 
page  87,  are  guaranteed  to  contain  5 to  7 per  cent,  of  crude  fat ; 30  to  32 
per  cent,  of  crude  protein;  14  to  25  per  cent,  of  crude  fiber. 

ATTENTION— CONSUMERS,  AGENTS  AND  DEALERS 

In  deciding  on  companies  to  represent  and  from  whom  to  purchase, 
the  details  of  inspection  in  Table  III,  page  48,  Bulletin  No.  209,  should 
be  closely  studied ; companies  who  ship  feed  properly  labeled  and  up  to 
guarantee  should  be  patronized  and  represented ; when  for  any  reason  re- 
fund is  received,  the  State  Chemist  should  be  promptly  notified.  Dealers 
who  have  sold  any  deficient  feed  and  received  refund,  must  file  receipts 
with  the  State  Chemist  showing  payment  of  the  proper  amount  to  each 
customer.  When  car  lots  or  appreciable  amounts  of  feed  are  received, 
waybills  and  correspondence  should  be  kept  and  the  State  Chemist  no- 
tified of  arrival  and  probable  time  of  distribution.  No  excuse  will  be 
accepted  from  agents  or  dealers  who  persist  in  representing  companies 
who  ship  deficient,  adulterated  or  unlabeled  feed. 

For  the  convenience  of  consumers,  the  brands  of  feeding  stuffs  ap- 
pearing in  this  bulletin  have  been  divided  into  29  classes,  covering  all 
feeds  registered  and  offered  for  sale  in  Indiana.  These  29  classes  ap- 
pear in  the  index,  page  161,  and  by  using  this  index,  one  should  experi- 
ence no  difficulty  in  finding  all  desired  brands  of  each  class  of  feed  col- 
lected together. 

The  facts  are  presented  in  the  annual  bulletins,  and  it  is  to  the  best 
interests  of  the  purchasers  and  consumers  of  feeding  stuff  in  Indiana, 
that  they  cooperate  with  the  State  Chemist  and  patronize  only  those 
firms  which  meet  the  requirements  of  the  law  in  every  particular. 

SUGGESTIONS  TO  PURCHASERS 

Purchase  feed  for  cash  in  full  carload  shipments  through  firms 
which  can  deliver  your  order  by  a direct  haul.  You  not  only  secure 
cheaper  feed  but  you  help  win  the  war  by  conserving  freight  cars,  labor 
and  fuel.  Having  decided  on  the  type  of  feed  desired,  consult  registra- 
tions of  this  class  of  feed  found  in  the  registration  list.  Compare  the 
guaranteed  analysis  with  the  actual  found  analysis  given  in  Bulletin  No. 
209  and  secure  quotations  from  several  of  the  manufacturers  who  have 
in  the  past  maintained  their  guarantees.  They  should,  owing  to  saving  in 
freight,  be  in  a position  to  quote  better  prices. 

Consult  the  State  Chemist  if  uncertain  as  to  the  standing  of  manu- 
facturers with  respect  to  the  maintenance  of  their  guarantees.  He  is 
always  ready  to  advise  and  aid  you  in  securing  desired  brands  of  feed- 
ing stuffs. 

With  the  exception  of  wheat  mill  feeds,  distillers’  and  brewers’  grains, 
no  shortage  of  animal  food  exists.  Agents  and  consumers  however,  can 
have  no  assurance  that  transportation  difficulties  in  the  winter  months  of 
1918  and  1919  will  be  any  improvement  over  similar  months  of  1917  and 
1918  and  a reasonable  supply  of  feed  should  be  kept  in  stock. 


9 


NEW  RULINGS  ON  ANIMAL  FEEDING  STUFF 

Considerable  uncertainty  exists  regarding  the  prices  of  mill  feeds  as 
controlled  by  the  United  States  Food  Administration.  Many  feeders 
expected  to  purchase  wheat  bran  for  $27.87  per  ton,  and  felt  that  they 
-vere  being  discriminated  against  by  the  wholesalers  and  jobbers  when 
quoted  $38.00  to  $41.00  per  ton. 

The  enforcement  of  Rule  19  of  the  United  States  Food  Adminis- 
tration in  Indiana  is  the  duty  of  the  State  Food  Administrator,  Harry 
Everett  Barnard,  Ph.  D.,  State  House,  Indianapolis.  Dr.  Barnard  has 
deputy  food  administrators  in  the  different  counties  of  the  State,  and  com- 
plaints of  overcharge  should  be  made  to  Dr.  Barnard  or  his  deputies  in 
the  several  counties. 

The  principal  ruling  affecting  the  prices  of  mill  feeds,  promulgated 
December  18,  1917,  is  known  as  Rule  19. 

“Rule  19.  No  Licensee  engaged  in  the  business  of  milling  flour  and 
feed  from  wheat  shall  after  December  25,  1917,  sell  wheat  mill  feed  at 
any  price  in  excess  of  the  following  prices,”  Chicago  district. 

“Bulk  price  per  ton  of  2,000  pounds  at  mill  in  carloads  in  no  case 
shall  exceed  38  per  cent  of  the  average  cost  to  such  mill  of  one  ton  of 
wheat  at  the  mill,  which  cost  of  wheat  shall  be  the  average  cost  as  shown 
by  the  previous  month’s  records  of  said  mill  and  shall  include  the  1 per 
cent  Administration  Fee  paid  by  the  mill  on  all  wheat  ground. 

Differentials  (Maximum  Prices,  Bulk,  Mill). 

Basis  Bran. 

Shorts  or  standard  middlings  $ 2.00  per  ton  of  2,000  lbs.  over  basis 

Mixed  feeds  4.00  per  ton  of  2,000  lbs.  over  basis 

Flour  middlings  9.00  per  ton  of  2,000  lbs.  over  basis 

Red  dog  15.00  per  ton  of  2,000  lbs.  over  basis 

“The  above  percentages  on  prices  are  subject  to  revision  from  time 
to  time  by  the  United  States  Food  Administrator,  but  no  revision  will  be 
made  without  thirty  days’  notice. 

“The  price  f.  o.  b.,  bulk,  mill,  in  carload  lots  shall  be  on  the  basis 
of  cash  or  draft  attached  to  bill  of  lading  and  all  feed  sold  by  the  Licensee 
shall  be  invoiced  at  such  price.  There  shall  also  appear  on  the  invoice, 
in  addition  to  such  price,  f o.  b.  mill,  the  price  of  the  sacks  and  items 
of  freight  and  interest,  if  any,  when  goods  are  sold  on  extended  terms  or 
credit,  and  other  charges,  but  the  Licensee,  for  convenience  in  selling, 
may  quote  a delivered  price  in  sacks.  This  rule  shall  not  affect  existing 
contracts. 

“This  rule  aims  to  establish  a relation  between  the  price  of  mill  feeds 
and  the  price  of  wheat.  It  is  made  necessary  by  the  unusually  high  price 
of  coarse  grains,  which  has  caused  unprecedented  demand  for  mill  feeds. 

“In  view  of  possible  larger  movement  of  the  coarse  grains,  which 
would  naturally  result  in  a decrease  in  the  demand  for  and  price  of  mill 
feed,  which  in  turn  would  tend  to  advance  the  price  of  flour,  it  is  neces- 
sary at  this  time  to  adjust  the  price  of  mill  feed  rather  than  trust  to  a 
rigid  and  unjust  arrangement  at  a later  date.” 

The  bulk  price  of  wheat  bran  at  the  mills  under  this  ruling  would  be 
determined  as  follows : 


10 


With  wheat,  60  pounds  per  bushel,  33.33  bushels  to  one  ton,  under 
United  States  fixed  price  of  $2.20  per  bushel  as  a maximum  for  No.  1 
grade,  would  be  $73.33  per  ton,  38  per  cent,  of  this  cost  to  the  mill  is  the 
bulk  price  of  wheat  bran  carload  lots,  or  $27.86. . (Some  large  mills  now 
quote  prices  $0.21  per  ton  under  the  maximum  price.)  This  price  also 
refers  to  a carload  of  33  tons,  being  the  preferred  load  at  the  present 
time.  If  we  assume  the  bran  is  purchased  from  a mill  in  Minneapolis^ 
Minn.,  by  a large  wholesale  and  retail  firm  in  Indiana,  the  invoice  on  the 
33  ton  car  would  be : 

Price  in  bulk  f.  o.  b.  mill  at 

vSacks,  at  

Freight  to  Indiana  on  66,495  pounds,  at 
War  tax  on  freight  ($108.34)  at  


Making  price  delivered  (per  ton  $36.11)  total  price $1,191.68 

If  bought  through  broker  $0.25  per  ton  commission 8.25 

Total  cost  (per  ton  $36.36) $1,199.93 


If  bought  through  a commission  house  $0.50  per  ton 
Total  cost  (per  ton  $36.61) 

Total  cost  of  car  $1,191.68 

Added  (commission)  16.50 


Total  cost  of  33  ton  car $1,208.18  ($36.61  per  ton) 

The  Indiana  wholesaler  would  sell  this  bran  in  ton  lots  direct  to  con- 
sumers at  a $3.00  profit  or  approximately  $39.61.  He  would  make  an  ad- 
ditional charge  of  $1.00  for  retailing  less  than  ton  lots.  This  same  whole- 
saler might  sell  at  a $2.00  profit  per  ton  to  a smaller  jobber  or  retailer, 
who  in  turn  would  deliver  to  a consumer  at  $40.00  to  $41.00  per  ton. 
All  sales  are  supposedly  cash  equivalent ; higher  prices  would  undoubt- 
edly prevail  if  credit  were  given.  Two  additional  factors  entering  into 
the  ton  cost  of  bran,  is  the  saving  in  freight  rates  if  bran  is  purchased 
from  Indiana  mills,  and  sacks,  which  in  good  condition  can  be  returned. 
These  two  factors  will  lessen  the  cost  fully  $6.00  per  ton. 

To  ascertain  the  price  of  other  mill  feeds,  it  is  necessary  to  add  to 
the  ton  cost  of  bran,  $2.00  per  ton  for  shorts  or  standard  middlings,  $4.00 
per  ton  for  mixed  feed,  $9.00  per  ton  for  flour  middlings,  and  $15.00  per 
ton  for  red  dog.  The  two  latter  classes  of  feeds,  however,  are  now 
principally  used  for  human  consumption. 

Owing  to  the  increased  production  of  flour  per  bushel  of  wheat,  due 
to  the  new  milling  under  the  direction  of  the  food  administration  and  to 
the  actual  decreased  milling  of  wheat,  the  supplies  of  wheat  bran  and 
shorts  in  Indiana  have  been  seriously  decreased.  Wheat  bran  and  shorts 
are  not  offered  freely  in  Indiana  at  the  present  time,  and  feeders  must 
use  substitute  feeds  wherever  possible. 


.$27.87  $ 919.71 

4.86  160.38 

0.163  cwt.  108.34 

3 per  cent.  3.25 


II 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale  May  1,  1918 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

BRAN,  MIDDLINGS,  SHORTS,  CHOP 
FEEDS,  CORN  FEED  MEAL  AND 
OTHER  MILL  BY-PRODUCTS 

Aeme-Evans  Company,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Acme  Feed  _ 

5588 

4.0 

16.0 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  not 
exceeding  mill’s  run  of  ground 
cleaned  wheat  screenings 

Acme  Middlings  and  Screenings 

5500 

4.5 

16.5 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings,  not  exceeding 
mill’s  run  of  ground  cleaned  wheat 
screenings 

Homlik  — — — — - 

6876 

3.0 

8.5 

4.0 

Reground  corn  feed  meal 

Acme  Bran  and  Screenings  __  __  

7159 

3.5 

15.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  not  exceeding  mill’s  run 
of  ground  cleaned  wheat  screenings 

Capitol  Red  Dog  Flour 

7573 

4.0 

15.0 

5.0 

Low  grade  wheat  flour  containing 
the  finer  particles  of  wheat  bran 

Acme  Flour  Middlings  & Screenings. 

7018 

4.5 

16.5 

8.0 

Wheat  flour,  wheat  middlings,  not 
exceeding  mill’s  run  of  ground 
cleaned  wheat  screenings 

Acme  Farm  Feed  . 

8439 

5.0 

12.0 

7.0 

Corn,  wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings, 
hominy  feed 

Acme  Barley  Mill  Feed  with  Ground  Screenings 
Acme  Rye  Mixed  Feed  with  Ground  Rye 

9266 

2.5 

10.0 

19.5 

Barley  hulls,  barley  bran,  barley  mid- 
dlings, ground  barley  screenings 

Screenings  . 

Acme  Milling  Company,  The,  Aurora,  Ind. 

9327 

2.5 

13.0 

6.5 

Rye  bran,  rye  middlings,  not  exceed- 
ing mill  run  of  ground  cleaned  rye 
screenings 

Middlings  ..  ....  

968 

3.9 

14.2 

6.6 

Wheat  middlings 

Chop  Feed  (Corn  & Oats)  _ 

969 

3.8 

10.5 

8.7 

Corn,  oats 

Bran  & Middlings  

970 

3.9 

14.2 

8.2 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

Wheat  Bran  . 

971 

3.7 

14.1 

10.1 

Wheat  bran 

Mxd  Bran 

2556 

3.7 

13.6 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran 

Aiman,  W.  H.,  Pendleton,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran 

3811 

3.5 

14.0 

10.5 

Wheat  bran 

Akin-Erskine  Milling  Company,  Evansville,  Ind. 
Standard  Middlings  or  Shorts,  Ground 

Wheat  Screenings  and  Salt  ... 

6032 

4.0 

14.0 

6.0 

Wheat  shorts,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings, salt 

Mixed  Feed  

Winter  Wheat  Bran  & Mill  Run  Wheat 

6047 

4.0 

15.0 

9.5 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  salt 

Screenings  

7729 

3.9 

14.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  whole  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

Corn  Feed  Meal  ______  . ...  . 

8572 

2.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Rye  Mixed  Feed,  Ground  Screenings  and  Salt- 

9176 

3.0 

14.5 

11.0 

Rye  bran,  rye  middlings,  ground  rye 
screenings,  salt 

Akron  Milling  Company,  The,  Akron,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  

2795 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  Bran  

3597 

3.5 

14.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran 

Albion  Roller  Mills,  Albion,  Ind. 

Winter  Wheat  Bran  

8610 

3.0 

• 13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Winter  Wheat  Middlings  

8611 

3.0 

13.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Allan,  J.  P.,  Farmersburg,  Ind. 

J.  P.  Allans  Mixed  Feed 

2892 

4.0 

9.5 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  hominy  feed,  oats 

American  Hominy  Company, 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Cracked  Corn  and  Rolled  Oats 

6578 

4.0 

9.0 

5.0 

Corn,  rolled  oats 

Yellow  Feed  Meal  _ 

9228 

3.5 

8.5 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Rye  Middlings  _ 

9382 

3.5 

16.0 

7.0 

Rye  middlings 

American  Milling  Company,  Peoria,  111. 

Amco  Corn  Feed  Meal 

Amo  Mill  & Elevator  Company,  Amo,  Ind. 

8005 

2.5 

8.0 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Amo  Middlings 

4442 

2.8 

13.0 

7.0  ' 

Wheat  middlings 

12 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Amo  Mill  & Elevator  Company,  Amo,  Ind. 

Amo  Feed  ___  __ 

4443 

3.0 

13.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings, corn  bran 

Rye  Middlings  and  Screenings 

7947 

2.7 

13.5 

12.0 

Rye  middlings,  ground  rye  screenings 

Middlings  and  Screenings  

8118 

2.8 

13.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings^  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Anchor  Milling  Company,  Rochester,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  ___  

3747 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  Bran  

3909 

3.0 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Mixed  Feed  - _ _ _ _ 

4214 

3.0 

12.0 

11.5 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings, corn  bran 

Anchor  Chop  Feed  

8587 

3.5 

0.0 

5.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Anderson,  C.,  New  Waverly,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  

1821 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings 

“A”  Mixed  Bran  

3782 

3.2 

12.0 

13.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran 

Anderson,  G.  H.,  Seymour,  Ind. 

Corn  Bran  - - ___  _ _ 

4837 

3.0 

7.0 

15.0 

Corn  bran 

Corn  Feed  Meal 

5230 

2.0 

7.0 

3.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Angola  Flouring  Mill,  Angola,  Ind. 

Angola  Flouring  Mills  Middlings — 

1097 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Angola  Flouring  Mills  Wheat  Bran_  

1098 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Arcady  Farms  Milling  Company,  Chicago,  111. 
Wheat  Middlings  (With  Screenings  Not  to 

Exceed  Mill  Run) 

Wheat  Bran  (With  Screenings  Not  Exceeding 

8829 

3.5 

14.0 

12.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Mill  Run)  

8830 

3.0 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings not  exceeding  mill  run 

Arkansas  City  Milling  Company,  The, 

Arkansas  City,  Kansas. 

Standard  Wheat  Shorts  & Screenings.  

8469 

3.5 

16.0 

5.5 

Wheat  shorts,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings not  to  exceed  8% 

Wheat  Bran  & Screenings 

8470 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings not  to  exceed  8% 

Mill  Run  Wheat  Mixed  Feed  & Screenings  _ _ 

8807 

4.0 

16.0 

8.5 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  shorts,  ground 
wheat  screenings  not  to  exceed  8% 

Ashbrook  Company,  The  J.  S.,  Mattoon,  111. 

Royal  Grain  Feed  . ..  — ... 

5012 

3.0 

10.0 

7.0 

Corn,  rolled  oats,  rolled  barley 

Peerless  Corn  & Oats  Chop 

7983 

3.0 

10.0 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

Diamond  A.  Feed  Meal 

8200 

3.0 

10.0 

6.0 

Feed  meal  from  corn,  kafir,  milo  and 
wheat 

Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings  _ 

8530 

4.0 

13.0 

13.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Wheat  Middlings  with  Ground  Screenings 

8531 

4.0 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Ashley-Hudson  Milling  & Grain  Company,1 
Ashley,  Ind. 

Ashley-Hudson  Wheat  Bran  

3144 

3.8 

14.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran 

Ashley-Hudson  Wheat  Middlings  .. 

3145 

4.0 

11.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Atkinson  Milling  Company,  Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Wheat  Bran  with  Screenings 

8100 

4.0 

13.0 

13.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Auburn  Feed  Store,  Auburn,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed 

5004 

3.2 

8.5 

7.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Augusta  Milling  Company,  The,  Augusta,  Ind. 
Wheat  Bran  & Middlings  Mixed 

3438 

3.5 

13.5 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

Aviston  Milling  Company,  Aviston,  111. 

Hobby  Horse  White  Middlings,  with  Ground 

Screenings  not  exceeding  Mill  Run 

7383 

5.0 

14.5 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Amilko  Pure  Bran . _ ...  .... 

7384 

5.0 

15.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran 

Courtesy  White  Shipstuff,  (Red  Dog) 

7483 

3.0 

14.5 

3.5 

Wheat  middlings,  reddog  flour 

1 Succeeded  by  Kirlin  & Hammond 

i3 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Aviston  Milling  Company,  Aviston,  111. 

Hobby  Horse  Wheat  Bran  with  Ground 

Screenings  not  exceeding  Mill  Run.  _ 

7503 

3.5 

14.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings not  exceeding  mill  run 

Bachman,  Valentine,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Bachman’s  Cleaned  Wheat  Product  . 

6950 

3.7 

16.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

Rye  Mixed  Peed  & Ground  Rye  Screenings 

9231 

2.7 

14.0 

8.0 

Rye  bran,  rye  middlings,  mill  run 
ground  rye  screenings 

Badenoch  Company,  J.  J.,  Chicago,  111. 

J.  J.  Badenoch  Co’s  Wheat  Bran  with  Ground 

Screenings  not  exceeding  Mill  Run.  

J.  J.  Badenoch  Co’s  Wheat  Standard  Mid- 

6219 

4.0 

14.5 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings not  exceeding  mill  run 

dlings  with  Ground  Screenings  not  ex- 

ceeding  Mill  Run 

6220 

5.0 

15.0 

9.5 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Corn  Peed  Meal  _ 

6989 

1.2 

7.0 

3.5 

Corn  feed  meal 

Wheat  Flour  Middlings 

8638 

4.0 

15.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Corn  Mill  Peed  — 

9354 

4.0 

3.5 

12.5 

Corn  bran,  corn  meal 

Bailey  & Thompson,  Prairie  Creek,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  No.  1 

6952 

3.0 

12.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  ground  wheat 
screenings,  corn  bran 

Thompsons  Wheat  Shorts  

7769 

3.8 

14.9 

7.4 

Wheat  shorts 

Mixed  Peed  No.  2 . .. 

7770 

3.0 

12.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings, corn  bran 

Corn  feed  meal 

Corn  Peed  Meal  

7785 

2.5 

7.5 

5.0 

Bainton  Bros.,  Buchanon,  Mich. 

Baintons  Bran  and  Shorts 

7026 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts 

Middlings  . ... 

7128 

2.5 

12.0 

2.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Baldwin,  Jr.,  Dwight  M.,  Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Dwight  Plour  Mills  Red  Dog  ._  

Baldwin  Plour  Mills  Wheat  Shorts  & Screen- 

3205 

5.5 

17.5 

6.0 

Low  grade  wheat  flour  containing 
the  finer  particles  of  wheat  bran 

ings  — . 

Baldwin  Flour  Mills  Wheat  Plour  Midds  and 

5693 

5.0 

15.0 

11.0 

Wheat  shorts,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings not  exceeding  mill  run 

Screenings  ...  

Baldwin  Plour  Mills  Wheat  Bran  and  Screen- 

5694 

5.0 

16.5 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

ings  ..  ...  

5695 

4.0 

14.5 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings not  exceeding  mill  run 

Baldwin,  J.  Jay,  Crown  Point,  Ind. 

“Baldwin  Chop  Peed”  . _ . 

8700 

3.0 

8.0 

6.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Ballard  & Ballard  Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 
Ballard’s  Mixed  Wheat  Peed  & Mill  Run 

Screenings  ...  ...  ... 

8758 

4.4 

14.6 

6.9 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  cleaned 
and  ground  wheat  screenings 

Ballard’s  Bran  ...  

8759 

4.1 

14.5 

9.6 

Wheat  bran 

Ballard’s  Kentucky  Farm  Peed  

8760 

4.4 

15.0 

6.4 

Wheat  middlings,  cleaned  and 
ground  wheat  screenings 

Ballard’s  Rye  Mill  Feed  

9163 

2.5 

13.0 

7.0 

Rye  bran,  rye  middlings 

Banner  Roller  Mills,  The,  Mooresville,  Ind. 

Wheeler's  Banner  Mixed  Feed  _ ...  ...  . 

437 

3.9 

14.0 

8.5 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  corn  bran 

Barlow,  C.  M.,  Kokomo,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  ..  . . 

5368 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Barlow’s  Chop  Feed  

' 5938 

3.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Barry,  Russell,  Crandall,  Ind. 

Mixed  Peed 

8421 

3.0 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

Wheat  Middlings 

8422 

3.0 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Bartle  & Robbins,  Muncie,  Ind. 

Chop  Peed  ... 

4890 

3.5 

8.6 

12.0 

Com,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

14 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


LABEL 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


it:  45 

■2  8* 

ft  W 


a n 

+*  . p © 

££  g,  g ; 
^8®  S; 

||1|! 
ft  O ^ 


and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Bartlett  Company,  The  J.  E.,  Jackson,  Mich. 
Wheat  Bran  with  Screenings 

Standard  Wheat  Middlings  and  Screenings... 

“Farmer  Brand”  Red  Dog  Flour 

Farmer  Brand  Rye  Middlings 

Farmer  Brand  Flour  Middlings  with  Screen- 
ings — 

Rye  Midds  and  Screenings 

Bartlett’s  Rye  Middlings  with  Ground  Screen- 
ings not  Exceeding  Mill  Run 

Bash  & Company,  C.  E.,  Huntington,  Tnd. 

C.  E.  Bash  & Co’s  Chop 

Batchelor,  Barlow  & Batchelor,2 
Sharpsville,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  i_ 

Wheat  Shorts  

Batchelor  & Barlow,  Sharpsville,  Ind. 

B.  & B.  Chop 

Batchelor,  Barlow  & Davis,  Sharpsville,  Ind. 
Corn  Bran  2 

Batesville  Flour  Mills,  Batesville,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  

Wheat  Shorts  — 

Bauer  Milling  Company,  Lanesville,  Ind. 

Bauer’s  Jersey  Bran 

Bauer’s  Daisy  Shorts  

Bay  State  Milling  Company,  Winona,  Minn. 

Rye  Middlings  

“Winona”  Fancy  White  Flour  Middlings 

“Winona”  Fancy  Mixed  Wheat  Feed  & 
Wheat  Screenings 

Reddog  Flour  

“Winona”  Wheat  Middlings  and  Wheat 
Screenings  

“Winona”  Coarse  Wheat  Bran 

Beck,  Delbert  F.,  Burlington,  Ind. 

Beck’s  Chop  Feed 

Belt  Elevator  & Feed  Company, 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Feed  Meal  

Chop  Feed  

Mixed  Feed  

Bender,  Nicholas,  Siberia,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  

Benham  Milling  Company,  The,  Benham,  Ind. 

Wheat  Shorts  

Wheat  Bran  

2 Succeeded  by  Batchelor  & Barlow 


6813 

6814 
7211 
7565 
7668 
8997 
9341 

1749 


4675 

4676 


4037 

7804 

7805 


8955 

8956 


8189 

8190 

8191 

8194 

9001 

9C02 

1209 


3322 

3777 

3778 


5507 


2948 

4339 


3.0 

4.5 

4.0 

2.0 

4.0 

3.5 

3.0 


3.8 

3.7 


3.5 

5.0 

3.2 

3.0 


4.2 

5.0 


3.4 

4.5 


4.5 
5.0 

3.5 

3.9 


3.7 

3.5 

2.0 


3.5 


3.5 

3.0 


14.0 

13.5 

15.0 

14.0 

15.0 
15.0 

14.5 

9.5 


14.0 

14.0 


9.0 

8.0 

12.8 

13.1 


15.5 

14.5 


16.0 

16.0 

16.0 

16.0 

16.5 

15.0 

9.5 


8.5 

9.0 

10.0 


13.5 


13.5 

14.0 


11.0 

10.0 

3.7 

8.0 

7.5 

7.0 

8.0 

6.0 


12.0 

7.0 


6.0 

13.0 

10.0 
8.0 


9.0 

7.0 


6.0 

2.5 


8.0 


2.0 

8.3 


12.0 


6.0 


7.0 

7.0 

15.0 


10.0 


7.0 

12.0 


Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings not  exceeding  mill  run 
Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 
Low  grade  wheat  flour  containing 
the  finer  particles  of  wheat  bran 
Rye  middlings 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  to  exceed  mill  run 
Rye  middlings,  ground  rye  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 
Rye  middlings,  ground  rye  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

Corn,  oats 


Wheat  bran 
Wheat  shorts 


Corn,  oats 


Corn  bran 


Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings 

Wheat  shorts 


Wheat  bran 
Wheat  shorts 


Rye  middlings 
Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  red  dog 
flour,  less  than  6%  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Low  grade  wheat  flour  containing 
the  finer  particles  of  wheat  bran 
Wheat  middlings,  less  than  8% 
ground  wheat  screenings 
Wheat  bran 


Corn,  oats 


Corn  feed  meal 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Wheat,  crushed  wheat  screenings 


Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings, 
ground  wheat  screenings 

Wheat  shorts 
Wheat  bran 


i5 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1913  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Bergenroth  Bros.,  Troy,  Ind. 

Wheat  Shorts  and  Screenings  

2023 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings 

Bergenroths  Wheat  Bran  & Screenings 

2024 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Middlings  

4.0 

15.0 

6.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Mixed  Feed  --  — 

3441 

4.0 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

Mixed  Bran  & Screenings  . 

3442 

3.8 

14.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings, corn  bran 

Corn  bran 

Corn  Bran  _ _ 

3443 

4.5 

8.0 

14.0 

Berlein  Mills,  Angola,  R.  F.  D.,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings 

7515 

3.0 

12.0 

10.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  Bran — 

7738 

3.0 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Berne  Milling  Company,  Berne,  Ind. 

Berne  Milling  Co’s  Wheat  & Corn  Bran 

1117 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran 

Chop  Feed  - _ _ __ _ 

6673 

2.8 

8.7 

8.0 

Corn,  oats,  barley,  corn  feed  meal 

Wheat  Shorts  ___  — ■ 

8018 

2.3 

13.0 

7.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Bernet,  Craft  & Kauffman  Milling  Company, 
St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Mt.  Carmel  Bran  & Screenings  

5518 

3.5 

14.3 

9.5 

Wheat  bran,  crushed  wheat  screen- 
ings not  exceeding  mill  run 

Mixed  Feed  _ 

5519 

4.0 

14.5 

9.5 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  crushed 
wheat  screenings  not  exceeding  mill 
run 

Wheat  Middlings  and  Screenings  __  

5791 

4.9 

17.2 

6.0 

Wheat  middlings,  crushed  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

“A”  Wheat  Middlings  with  Screenings 

5808 

3.0 

15.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Berry  Bros.,  Lynn,  Ind. 

Daisy  Chop 

7044 

3.5 

9.0 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

Besser,  W.  T.,  Greencastle,  Ind. 

Besser’s  Extra  Mixed  Feed  __  

Bickhart,  Chris  J.,  Rushville,  Ind. 

5170 

3.5 

15.4 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran, 
ground  wheat  screenings  not  exceed- 
ing mill  run 

Corn  Bran  __  _ _ __  _ 

3790 

4.0 

7.0 

14.5 

Corn  bran 

Bicknell  Mill  Company,  Bicknell,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  _ 

7824 

3.0 

13.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

White  Middlings  __  

7825 

3.0 

12.0 

9.5 

Wheat  middlings 

Bieker  Bros.  Company,  Hammond,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  __  __  ___  _ _ 

3869 

3.0 

9.0 

8.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Big  Diamond  Mills  Company, 

Minneapolis,  Minn. 

“Big  Diamond  Bran”  and  Screenings  not 

exceeding  Mill  Run  _ 

“Big  Diamond  Standard  Middlings”  and 

9075 

4.0 

14.0 

13.5 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings not  exceeding  mill  run 

Screenings  not  exceeding  Mill  Run._  _ 

9076 

5.0 

15.5 

10.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Bishop  Elevator  Company,  Logansport,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

554 

3.9 

9.5 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

Blair  Milling  Company,  The,  Atchison,  Kansas 

Bran  and  Screenings  _ 

7735 

3.5 

14.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran5  1%  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Soft  Wheat  Shorts 

7736 

3.5 

16.0 

5.5 

Wheat  shorts 

Blanton  Milling  Company,  The, 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Blanton’s  Middlings 

47 

3.6 

16.1 

5.3 

Wheat  middlings 

The  Blanton  Mixed  Feed _ 

3805 

3.7 

15.7 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  whole  wheat 
screenings 

Blanton’s  Pig  Feed 

7378  | 

3.0 

if  5 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings,  low  grade  flour 

6 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


LABEL 


Bledsoe,  Ernest  E.,  Dugger,  Ind. 
Deacons  Horse  Feed 


2918 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


£ ft 


5.0 


Corn,  oats 


Blish  Milling  Company,  Seymour,  Ind. 
Blish’s  Red  Dog  Flour 

Bulls’  Eye  Mixed  Feed 

Bloomfield  Mill  & Elevator  Company, 
Bloomfield,  Ind. 

Mixed  Mill  Feed  

Corn  Bran  


6403  3.5 


16.0 


8176 


4.5  16.0 


3.0  Low  grade  wheat  flour  containing 

the  finer  particles  of  wheat  bran 

9.0  Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 

wheat  screenings 


4924 

8654 


3.0 

3.0 


12.8 

6.0 


10.0 

9.0 


Wheat  bran,  middlings,  whole  wheat 
screenings,  corn  bran 
Corn  bran 


Bloomington  Milling  Company,  The, 
Bloomington,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  

Middlings  & Screenings  

Corn  Feed  Meal  


3602 

8447 

9211 


3.0 

4.0 

5.0 


13.0 

14.0 
9.0 


8.0  Wheat  bran,  middlings,  whole  wheat 

screenings,  corn  bran 

9.0  Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 

screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

8.0  Corn  feed  meal 


Bluffton  Milling  Company,  Bluffton,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  

Wheat  Middlings  


661 

8017 


3.8  14.0 

2.5  13.0 


10.0 

7.0 


Wheat  bran 
Wheat  middlings 


Bock,  Leonard,  Argos,  Ind.3 

Wheat  Middlings  

Chop  Feed 

Wheat  Bran  

Mixed  Feed  

Boldt  & Son,  Waynetown,  Ind. 
Mix  Mill  Feed 


548 

549 

550 
2843 


4.0 

3.9 

3.7 

3.7 


14.0 

9.5 

14.0 

14.0 


7.0  Wheat  middlings 

6.0  Corn,  oats 

10.0  Wheat  bran 

12.0  Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 

ings, corn  bran 


4170 


11.0 


11.0 


Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran 


Bolte  & Sons,  Ben,  Ferdinand,  Ind. 

Wheat  Shorts 7276 

Wheat  & Corn  Bran  and  Ground  Screenings,.  8178 


Boonville  Milling  Company,  Boonville,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  & Screenings 

Corn  Bran  

Corn  Feed  Meal 

Shorts  & Feed  Meal 

Boone  Mixed  Feed 


2842 

3080 

6851 

7847 

8991 


Boston  Milling  Company,  Eckerty,  Ind. 

Bobbitt’s  Mixed  Feed 3453 

Bowling  Green  Mills,  The,  Bowling  Green,  Ind.4 
Wheat  Bran  3370 


4.0  14.5 

3.5  14.5 


8.0 

10.0 


Wheat  shorts 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  ground 
wheat  screenings 


3.7  14.0 
4.0  9.0 
2.5  7.5 
4.0  T4.0 

3.8  15.0 


3.7  14.0 


10.0 

13.0 

5.0 

7.0 

11.0 


11.0 


Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
Corn  bran 
Corn  feed  meal 
Wheat  shorts,  corn  feed  meal 
Wheat  bran,  wheat  shorts,  corn 
bran,  ground  wheat  screenings  not 
to  exceed  mill  run 
Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings 


3.9  14.0 


10.0 


Wheat  bran 


Bowling  Green  Milling  Company, 
Bowling  Green,  Ind. 

Middlings  

Mifi  Feed  

Branch  Grain  & Seed  Company, 
Martinsville,  Ind. 

Horse  Feed  

Corn  Feed  Meal  


6206 

6912 


3.0  13  0 

3.5  10.4 


6.0 

13.0 


Wheat  middlings 
Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 


272  3.5 

38S8  2.5 


6.0  Corn,  oats 

5.0  Corn  feed  meal 


Brattain  & Son,  Anderson,  Ind. 
Corn  & Oats  Chop 


4511 


3.5 


9.0 


14.0 


Corn,  oats 


3 Succeeded  by  J.  A.  Bock 

4 Succeeded  by  Bowling  Green  Milling  Company 


1 7 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Brewer,  0.  F.,  Freetown,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  1 

5120 

3.5 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  middlings,  corn 
bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Freetown  Farm  Feed 

Brewer  Company,  Spencer,  Ind. 

9203 

3.0 

10.0 

10.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal,  corn 
bran,  wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings, 
ground  wheat  screenings 

Mixed  Feed  

9233 

3.0 

13.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

Brewer  Milling  Company,  Gosport,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  - 

3930 

2.6 

9.5 

7.5 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  ground  wheat 
screenings,  corn  bran 

Bridgeton  Milling  Company,  Bridgeton,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  - 

6621 

4.0 

9.3 

9.0 

Corn,  oats,  wheat  bran,  corn  bran, 
ground  wheat  screenings 

Mill  Feed  

7226 

3.7 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran, 
ground  wheat  screenings 

Wheat  Shorts  

7717 

2.0 

13.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Bran  & Ground  Screenings  _ 

8177 

3.8 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings 

Bristol  Milling  Company,  Bristol,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  . . _ - 

2019 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  Bran  . . . _ 

2150 

3.8 

13.0 

9.0 

Wheat  bran 

“Buckwheat”  Mixed  Feed 

8883 

3.5 

14.0 

18.0 

Buckwheat  hulls,  buckwheat  mid- 
dlings 

Brizius  Company,  The  Chas.  W., 

Newburgh,  Ind. 

Eagle  Mixed  Feed  . 

5927 

4.0 

15.1 

5.9 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

Eagle  Corn  Feed  Meal  . 

6075 

2.7 

6.8 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Eagle  Wheat  Shorts  or  Middlings 

7194 

3.8 

14.0 

6.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Eagle  Corn  Bran  --  - - - - 

7388 

4.0 

8.3 

13.5 

Cora  bran 

Eagle  Wheat  Bran  

8843 

4.0 

14.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Brook  Flour  & Feed  Mill,  Brook,  Ind. 

Com  Bran _ ___  ..  

2430 

4.5 

7.0 

10.0 

Corn  bran 

Chop  Feed  

2431 

3.5 

9.0 

8.0 

Corn,  oats 

Rising  Sun  Middlings  and  Ground  Screenings. 

8936 

4.0 

14.0 

16.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Rising  Sun  Bran  and  Ground  Screenings 

8937 

3.0 

12.0 

15.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Brooks  & Son,  L.,  Vincennes,  Ind. 

Corn  Bran 5 _ _ 

4759 

4.0 

7.0 

10.0 

Corn  bran 

Brose,  George,  Evansville,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  & Screenings  ..  ... 

2942 

3.2 

13.5 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Wheat  Middlings  and  Screenings 

6854 

3.8 

15.5 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Brose  & Arnold,  Evansville,  Ind. 

Bran  and  Screenings  ... 

2257 

3.7 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  Middlings  ..  ...  

7491 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Brotherton  & Son,  R.  E.,  Terre  Haute,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed ... 

1119 

3.5 

10.5 

5.5 

Wheat  bran,  com  meal,  oats 

Brown  & Cole,  Vevay,  Ind. 

A.  Mixed  Feed . 

7771 

3.7 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

Browning  Milling  Company,  W.  A., 

Evansville,  Ind. 

Corn  Bran 

2163 

4.0 

7.0 

14.0 

Corn  bran 

Corn  Feed  Meal 

3537 

2.4 

6.7 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Brudi  & Company,  Jos.,  New  Haven,  Ind. 

Middlings  . ...  

2246 

2.8 

13.1 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings 

5 Succeeded  by  U.  G.  McCoy  & Co. 


i8 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Brumfiel  Feed  & Produce  Company, 

Marion,  Ind. 

Corn  & Oats  Chop  _ 

3196 

3.9 

9.5 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

Mixed  Feed  

3247 

3.0 

13.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  screenings, 
corn  bran 

Bundy  Bros.,  Vallonia,  Ind. 

Mill  Feed  _ — - __ 

7861 

3.4 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

Shorts  _ _ 

Bundy  Mill  Company,  L.  L.,  Vallonia,  Ind. 

j 7862 

3.0 

13.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Corn  Feed  Meal — 

4095 

2.7 

7.5 

7.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Bunker  Hill  Milling  Company,  Evansville,  Ind. 

Bran,  Shipstuff  and  Screenings 

2586 

3.0 

12.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

Fancy  Shorts 

4571 

2.0 

10.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Wheat  Bran  and  Screenings  

4588 

2.0 

10.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Burge-Thomas  Milling  Company,  Marion,  Ind.6 

Shorts  . _ 

4728 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Corn  Bran  

5758 

3.5 

7.0 

12.0 

Corn  bran 

Corn  Feed  Meal — _ __  __ 

5759 

2.5 

7.5 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Mixed  Feed — _ __  _ _ _ 

5760 

3.8 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

Wheat  Bran  and  Wheat  Screenings __ 

6440 

3.1 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  whole  wheat  screenings 

Burkhart,  J.  E.,  Georgetown,  Ind. 

Shipstuff  

975 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

Burns,  W.  T.,  Rising  Sun,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  __ 

7768 

3.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

Burrell  & Morgan,  Elkhart,  Ind. 

Bran  . _ ___  

253 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Middlings  _ 

Butcher  & Duncan,  Oakland  City,  Ind. 

254 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Chop  Feed . _ __ 

7613 

3.0 

10.0 

5.0 

Corn,  oats,  wheat,  corn  feed  meal 

Butler  & Company,  Edw.  J.,  Chicago,  111. 

Standard  Middlings  _ 

5424 

4.0 

15.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  Bran  and  Screenings  _____  

8346 

4.0 

14.0 

14.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Wheat  Flour  Middlings  and  Screenings.. 

8347 

4.0 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 

Standard  Middlings  and  Screenings..  

8348 

4.0 

14.0 

14.0 

screenings 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Butler’s  Premium  Chop  Feed 

Butler  Milling  Company,  Butler,  Ind. 

8806 

4.1 

12.4 

12.0 

Ground  screenings  from  wheat  and 
barley 

Butler  Milling  Co’s  Wheat  Bran  

1029 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  Middlings  ___  _ _ 

7082 

3.6 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Butt  & Bro.,  L.  T.,  Center  Point,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed 

4431 

3.5 

13.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  ground  wheat 
screenings,  corn  bran 

Corn  Feed  Meal 

5133 

3.0 

7.0 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Wheat  Middlings  _ _ __ 

9334 

3.5 

13.5 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Buzbee,  H.,  Jonesboro,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed 

5683 

4.0 

10.0 

9.5 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Byrnes  & Company,  W.  J.,  Chicago,  111. 

Wheat  Bran  ... 

5435 

3.5 

15.7 

12.9 

Wheat  bran 

0 Succeeded  by  Thomas  Milling  Co. 


19 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

.Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Mot  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Mot  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Cadick  Milling  Company,  Grandview,  Ind. 

Bran  and  Screenings 

7858 

3.8 

15.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings, corn  bran 

Shipstuff  - 

7859 

4.0 

16.0 

. 7.0 

Wheat  shorts,  middlings,  reddog 
flour 

Mixed  Feed  

9196 

4.0 

15.0 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Cagle  & Schopmeyer,  Poland,  Ind.7 

Mixed  Feed  

6884 

3.8 

13.0 

13.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  shorts, 
ground  wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

Cannelton  Flour  Mills,  Cannelton,  Ind. 

Ship  & Wheat  Screenings 

• 

2589 

4.0 

14.0 

9.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

“A”  Mixed  Feed  ___  

3426 

3.5 

13.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

Mixed  Bran  & Screenings  _ — 

3427 

3.4 

13.5 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings, corn  bran 

Carmer  Company,  J.  M.,  Auburn,  Ind. 

Carmer  & Walker  Chop  Feed 

7925 

3.9 

9.5 

6.5 

Corn,  oats 

Carpenter,  A.  J.,  Hamilton,  Ind. 

A.  J.  Carpenter’s  Corn  and  Oat  Chop 

307 

3.9 

9.5 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

Carpenter,  B.  0.,  Perrysville,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  

3582 

3.0 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

“Wheat  Middlings”  __ ___ 

4712 

2.8 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Carter,  C.  F.,  Terre  Haute,  Ind. 

Bran  & Homco  Mixed  

4003 

5.0 

10.0 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  hominy  meal 

Carter  Feed  Store,  The,  Martinsville,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  — 

4862 

3.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Cauble,  0.  L.,  Pekin,  Ind. 

Wheat  Shorts  ___  

1016 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Wheat  Bran  __  

1018 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Corn  Bran  _ 

6129 

2.0 

8.0 

13.0 

Corn  bran 

Mixed  Feed  _ _ __  

6130 

2.0 

10.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  ground  wheat 
screenings,  wheat  dust,  mill  sweep- 
ings 

Mill  Feed 

Cauble  & Dunlevy,  Henryville,  Ind. 

8048 

4.0 

16.0 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  not 
exceeding  mill’s  run  of  ground 
cleaned  wheat  screenings 

Corn  Bran  __  

1728 

4.0 

7.0 

13.0 

Corn  bran 

Corn  Feed  Meal  _ 

4296 

2.7 

6.8 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Star  Mixed  Feed  _ 

8839 

4.0 

14.0 

8.5 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Cayuga  Milling  Company,  Cayuga,  Ind. 

Cayuga  Milling  Co’s  Mixed  Wheat  and  Corn 

• 

Bran  & Wheat  Shorts  _ ___  _ 

418 

4.2 

12.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  corn  bran 

Cayuga  Milling  Co’s  Mixed  Wheat  Bran  & 

Wheat  Shorts  __  __ 

419 

3.9 

14.0 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts 

Cayuga  Milling  Co’s  Wheat  Shorts 

420 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Cayuga  Milling  Co’s  Wheat  Bran  __  

421 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  & Corn  Bran  _ _ 

3892 

3.5 

12.5 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran 

Corn  Meal,  Shorts,  Wheat  Bran  & Com  Bran 

4373 

3.0 

11.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  corn  meal,  corn 
bran 

Corn  Meal  and  Shorts  Mixed  

4374 

3.0 

12.0 

9.0 

Wheat  shorts,  corn  meal 

“B”  Mixed  Feed _ .__  

5175 

3.5 

13.0 

6.0 

Wheat  shorts,  corn  feed  meal 

“A”  Mixed  Feed 

5176 

3.6 

11.0 

8.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  com  feed  meal 
Corn  bran 

Corn  Bran  __  

9330 

4.0 

7.0 

13.0 

Central  Mills  Company,  Dixon,  111. 

Oat  Meal  Middlings  ___  

6654 

5.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Oat  middlings 

7 Succeeded  by  L.  H.  Schopmeyer 


20 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1913  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Central  Kansas  Milling  Company, 

Lyons,  Kansas 

Wheat  Shorts  _ ___  ___  

8751 

3.7 

16.0 

5.5 

Wheat  shorts 

Wheat  Bran 

Chapin  & Company,  Hammond,  Ind. 

8752 

3.5 

14.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  Bran — 

4C86 

4.0 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  Middlings  

4687 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Chapman-Doake  Company,  The,  Decatur,  111. 

Corn  & Oats  Chop 

Chicago  Heights  Oil  Mfg.  Company, 

8590 

4.0 

10.0 

7.0 

Corn,  oats 

• 

Chicago,  111. 

“Prize”  Standard  Middlings  with  Ground 

Screenings  — 

6444 

4.0 

15.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

“Prize”  White  Middlings  - 

7004 

3.5 

15.0 

5.0 

Wheat  middlings 

“Prize”  Wheat  Bran  and  Screenings 

7005 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings not  exceeding  mill  run 

“Prize”  Standard  Middlings  and  Screenings.. 

7006 

4.0 

15.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

“Prize”  Red  Dog  Flour — 

7402 

4.0 

17.0 

5.0 

Low  grade  wheat  flour  containing 
the  finer  particles  of  wheat  bran 

“Prize”  Rye  Middlings  

7505 

3.0 

14.5 

5.0 

Rye  middlings 

Christian  & Company,  Geo.  C., 

Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Geo.  C.  Christian’s  Red  Dog 

3769 

3.5 

15.5 

4.0 

Low  grade  wheat  flour  containing 
the  finer  particles  of  wheat  bran 

Jersey  Bran  ._  ...  ..  ... 

3770 

4.0 

13.0 

11.5 

Wheat  bran 

Poland  Middlings ._  ...  

3771 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings 

White  Middlings  & Screenings  

5515 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Bran  & Screenings 

5516 

4.0 

13.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings not  exceeding  mill  run 

Middlings  & Screenings  

Jersey  Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings 

5517 

4.0 

14.0 

9.5 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Not  exceeding  Mill  Run  _ 

Poland  Wheat  Standard  Middlings  with 

7429 

4.0 

13.0 

13.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings not  exceeding  mill  run 

Ground  Screenings  not  exceeding  Mill  Run_. 

7430 

4.0 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Cicero  Mills  & Elevator,  Cicero,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  ..  

1799 

3.7 

9.5 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

Cincinnati  Grain  & Hay  Company,  The, 
Cincinnati,  Ohio 

Wheat  Bran  _ . _ 

8665 

4.0 

14.5 

9.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  Middlings  

8666 

4.2 

15.7 

6.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Mixed  Wheat  Feed  and  Screenings  _ 

8805 

4.2 

15.1 

8.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  6% 
ground  wheat  screenings 

City  Milling  Company,  Kendallville,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  _ 

6273 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  Middlings  

6370 

3.0 

13.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Corn  Feed  Meal ...  . 

9234 

3.0 

8.0 

7.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

City  Mills,  South  Whitley,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  ...  

6105 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  Middlings  __  _ 

6106 

3.5 

14.0 

6.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Chop  Feed  

6107 

3.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

City  Roller  Mills,  Vevay,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  or  Wheat  & Corn  Product 

1158 

3.0 

14.0 

8.2 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  shorts, 
ground  wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

Clark  Bros.,  Hagerstown,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  

2007 

3.7 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  Bran  

2562 

3.2 

12.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

21 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


LABEL 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


to  +»  ri 
03  C«H 

-2g® 

Z a o 


4j  . T3 

?-<  ft  o 


and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Clark  & Sons,  C.  G.,  Rushville,  Ind. 
Clark’s  Com  & Wheat  Bran  (Mixed). 

Clark’s  Wheat  Bran 

Clarks  Mixed  Feed  


Clarks  Middlings  

Wheat  Middlings  & Ground  Wheat  Screenings 

Claro  Milling  Company,  Waseca,  Minn. 

Claro  Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings— 
Claro  Wheat  Standard  Middlings  with 
Ground  Screenings 


Claro  Wheat  Flour  Middlings 
Claro  Red  Dog  


Claypole,  Geo.  M.,  Sardinia,  Ind. 
Geo.  M.  Claypole’s  Mixed  Feed 


Geo.  M.  Claypole’s  Wheat  Bran  

Geo.  M.  Claypole’s  Wheat  Middlings 

Com  Feed  Meal  

Chop  Feed 


Clayton  Milling  Company,  Clayton,  Ind. 

Mixed  Bran  

Wheat  Middlings  

Mixed  Feed  

White  Middlings  


Clifty  Mills,  R.  R.  3,  Greensburg,  Ind. 
Mill  Feed  


Clinton  Grain  Company,  Frankfort,  Ind. 
Wheat  and  Oats  Chop 


Clover  Leaf  Flour  Mills,  Kokomo,  Ind. 
Mixed  Feed  


Wheat  Middlings  

Clover  Leaf  Mixed  Feed 


Clyne,  I.  B.,  Crawfordsville,  Ind. 
Chop  Feed  


Coal  City  Milling  Company,  Coal  City,  Ind. 

Pure  Corn  and  Oats  Chop 

Coal  City  Mixed  Bran  

Coal  City  Wheat  Shorts  


Collamer  Milling  Company,  Collamer,  Ind. 

White  Middlings  

Mixed  Feed  


Collier  Bros.,  Culver,  Ind. 
Wheat  Bran  


Collins  & Swallow,  Lake,  Ind. 
Corn  Bran  


Columbia  City  Mill  & Elevator  Company, 
Columbia  City,  Ind. 

A.  Chop  Feed  


185 

3.7 

14.0 

10.7 

Corn  bran,  wheat  bran 

188 

3.7 

14.0 

10.3 

Wheat  bran 

5813 

2.9 

14.0 

10.7 

Wheat  bran,  ground  w’heat  screen- 
ings, corn  bran 

Wheat  middlings 

7918 

4.5 

18.0 

7.0 

9023 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

6615 

3.0 

14.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings not  exceeding  mill  run 

6616 

3.0 

14.0 

12.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

7045 

3.0 

15.0 

6.0 

Wheat  middlings 

7016 

3.0 

15.0 

5.0 

Low  grade  wheat  flour  containii 
the  finer  particles  of  wheat  bran 

1389 

3.5 

14.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

2144 

3.2 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

2500 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings 

4056 

2.7 

7.0 

7.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

8165 

3.5 

9.5 

10.0 

Corn,  oats,  wheat 

2525 

3.7 

14.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran 

7664 

3.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings 

7665 

3.0 

13.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings 

7722 

1.8 

13.0 

5.0 

Wheat  middlings 

4381 

3.0 

13.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

9062 

3.0 

9.0 

9.0 

Wheat,  oats 

3583 

3.8 

13.0 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  com  bran 

4449 

2.8 

12.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings 

5341 

3.5 

13.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

6207 

3.0 

8.0 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

2952 

3.5 

9.5 

7.0 

Corn,  oats 

6601 

3.5 

13.5 

11.5 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran 

6913 

3.5 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

7052 

2.0 

13.0 

5.0 

Wheat  middlings 

7053 

3.5 

14.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  germ  middlings 

1471 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

9394 

2.5 

7.0 

10.0 

Corn  bran 

6991 

3.0 

8.0 

10.0 

Corn,  oats,  rye,  barley,  corn  feed 
meal 

Succeeded  by  Farmers  Mill  & Elevator  Company 


22 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  nrotein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Columbus  Milling  Company,  Columbus,  Ind. 
Corn  Bran  _ ..  _ 

6908 

4.0 

8.0 

13.0 

Corn  bran 

A.  Mixed  Peed  __  

8676 

3.0 

13.5 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 

Combs  & Sons,  L.,  Vincennes,  Ind. 

Corn  & Oats  Feed  _ 

8070 

3.0 

8.0 

9.0 

wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

Corn,  oats 

Commander  Mill  Company,  Minneapolis,  Minn. 
Commander  Wheat  Bran  with  Ground 
Screenings  not  exceeding  Mill  Run 

9276 

4.0 

14.0 

13.5 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Commander  Standard  Middlings  with  Ground 
Screenings  not  exceeding  Mill  Run 

9276 

5.0 

15.5 

10.0 

not  exceeding  mill  run 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 

Commander  Flour  Middlings  with  Ground 
Screenings  not  exceeding  Mill  Run. 

9277 

5.5 

17.0 

7.0 

screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 
Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 

Cook,  E.  N.,  Plymouth,  Ind. 

Cook’s  Chop  Feed 

4770 

3.0 

9.0 

9.0 

screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Corn,  oats,  ground  corn  screenings, 
corn  feed  meal 

Wheat  bran 

Cooking  Milling  Company,  Richmond,  R.  R.  4, 
Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  

4796 

3.4 

12.0 

10.0 

Wheat  Middlings  — _ 

4797 

3.7 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Corn  Feed  Meal  

4798 

2.0 

7.0 

6.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Coombs  Milling  Company,  Wm.  A., 

Coldwater,  Mich. 

Wheat  Middlings  with  Ground  Screenings 
not  exceeding  Mill  Run  _ 

7344 

3.0 

15.0 

6.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 

Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings  not 
exceeding  Mill  Run _ 

7345 

3.0 

14.0 

10.0 

screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 
Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Coppes  Bros.  & Zook,  Nappanee,  Ind. 

Bran  __  «_ 

5628 

3.6 

13.5 

11.0 

not  exceeding  mill  run 

Wheat  bran 

Mixed  Feed  

6919 

4.5 

14.0 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 

Middlings  and  Ground  Wheat  Screenings 

7561 

4.0 

15.8 

6.0 

wheat  screenings 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 

Reddog  Flour  (Branded  “F”) 

7610 

2.7 

14.0 

2.3 

screenings 

Low  grade  wheat  flour  containing 

Corn  Bran  and  Ground  Corn  Screenings 

9329 

4.0 

9.0 

9.0 

the  finer  particles  of  wheat  bran 
Corn  bran,  ground  corn  screenings 

Corydon  Milling  Company,  Corydon,  Ind. 
Wheat  Middlings  _ 

3306 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

“A”  Mixed  Feed  _ 

7109 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  ground 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Company, 
Crawfordsville,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  - 

1929 

3.7 

9.0 

6.0 

wheat  screenings 

Corn,  oats 

Ground  Corn  and  Oats  Screenings  

8208 

3.0 

9.0 

10.0 

Ground  screenings  from  corn  and 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Company, 

Lafayette,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  

2467 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

oats 

Wheat  middlings 

Mixed  Feed  _____ 

2468 

3.7 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Chou _ _ 

8600 

3.0 

9.0 

10.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Thrift  Chop  Feed  __  

8688 

3.0 

9.0 

10.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Company, 

Reynolds,  Ind. 

C.  R.  T.  Chop  Feed 

5831 

3.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Crandal,  L.  N.,  Fremont,  Ind. 

Corn  & Oats  Chop 

1650 

3.9 

9.5 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

WTheat  Middlings  — 

1651 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  Bran  _ 

1652 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Crawford  Feed  Store,  Jay  S., 

Crown  Point,  Ind. 

Crawford’s  Chop  Feed  1 

5246 

3.0 

8.0 

6.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

23 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


LABEL 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

S940 

3.0 

8.0 

10.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

7146 

3.5 

14.0 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran, 
corn  feed  meal,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

7574 

3.8 

14.5 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran, 
whole  w'heat  screenings 

6772 

5.1 

14.2 

13.2 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

6773 

5.S 

16.2 

10.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

6418 

3.1 

13.0 

11.6 

Wheat  bran 

6419 

5.1 

15.0 

5.9 

Wheat  shorts 

3603 

4.0 

16.0 

6.0 

Wheat  middlings 

3604 

3.0 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

7773 

4.0 

7.0 

14.0 

Corn  bran 

246 

3.8 

14.0 

5.0 

Wheat  middlings 

2632 

I 

3.5 

12.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

2837 

3.7 

14.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

2838 

3.9 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings 

1514 

3.9 

9.0 

9.0 

Corn,  oats 

7089 

2.5 

12.0 

8.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

8747 

2.5 

6.0 

10.0 

Com  bran 

8748 

2.5 

7.0 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

9393 

7.0 

10.0 

7.0 

Corn  hearts,  corn  bran 

5501 

3.0 

9.0 

8.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

810 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  shorts 

4331 

2.5 

7.0 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

4546 

3.0 

9.0 

6.0 

Wheat,  corn,  oats 

4547 

3.5 

9.0 

7.0 

Corn,  oats 

2361 

3.9 

9.5 

8.0 

Corn,  oats 

Creitz  & Deardoff,  Centerville,  Ind. 
Corn  Peed  Meal  


Crescent  Milling  Company,  Crothersville,  Ind. 
A.  Mixed  Peed  


Mixed  Peed 


Crescent  Milling  Company,  Fairfax,  Minn. 
Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings  not 

exceeding  Mill  Run  

Standard  Middlings  with  Ground  Screenings 
not  exceeding  Mill  Run 


Crete  Mills,  The,  Crete,  Neb. 

Bran  

Shorts  


Crosby  Roller  Milling  Company,  Topeka,  Kans. 

Pure  Winter  Wheat  Middlings  

Pure  Winter  Wheat  Bran 


Crown  Mill  & Peed  Company,  Evansville,  Ind. 
Corn  Bran  


Croxton,  James  W.,  Cloverdale,  Ind. 
Middlings  


Croxton  & Company,  J.  W.,  Cloverdale,  Ind. 
Croxton’s  Extra  Mixed  Feed 

Crull,  Frank,  Mooreland,  Ind. 

Mixed  Peed  

Wheat  Middlings  


Cullom  & Sons,  W.  H.,  Frankfort,  Ind. 
Com  and  Oats  Chop 


Curby  Milling  Company,  Curby,  Ind. 
Shipstuff  


Cutsinger  & Thompson,  Shelbyville,  Ind. 

Corn  Bran  

Corn  Feed  Meal  


Dahnke-Walker  Milling  Company, 
Union  City,  Tenn. 

Danco  Feed  


Daily,  C.  C.,  Bristol,  R.  R.  5,  Ind. 
Bonneyville  No.  1 Chop  Feed  ... 


Dalrymple,  J.  W.,  Rising  Sun,  Ind. 
Bran  & Shorts 


Daniels  & Pickering  Company, 
Middletown,  Ind.9 
Com  Feed  Meal 


Darlington  Grain  Company,  Darlington,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  j 

Corn  and  Oats  Chop 


Darlington  Grist  Mill,  Darlington,  Ind. 
Chop  Feed  


0 Succeeded  by  J.  M.  Walker  & Son 


24 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 


Deck,  James  M.,  Roann,  Ind.10 

Pure  Winter  Wheat  Bran 

Pure  Wheat  Middlings  

Delp  Grain  Company,  E.  E.,  Bourbon,  Ind. 

Crushota  

Wheat  Bran  & Screenings 

Wheat  Middlings  & Screenings 

Special  Corn  Feed  Meal 

Deutsch  & Sickert  Company,  Milwaukee,  Wis. 

Coarse  Wheat  Bran  

Pure  Wheat  Middlings  

Mystic  Bran  

Eagle  Wheat  Standard  Middlings  with 
Ground  Screenings 

Wheat  Bran  with  Screenings 

Corn  Feed  Meal 

Flour  Middlings  Including  Mill  Run  Screenings 

Reddog  Flour  — 

Mixed  Feed  


Rye  Middlings  Including  Mill  Run  Screenings  _ 
White  Corn  Bran 

Dickinson  Company,  The  Albert,  Chicago,  111. 

Corn  Feed  Meal 

Wheat  Standard  Middlings  with  Ground 

Screenings  not  to  exceed  Mill  Run 

Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings  not 

exceeding  Mill  Run  

Flour  Middlings  with  Ground  Wheat  Screen- 
ings not  to  Exceed  Mill  Run 

Albert  Dickinson  Co.  Red  Dog  Flour 

Dilger  Bros.,  Mariah  Hill,  Ind. 

Mixed  Bran  

Dilger  Bros.  Wheat  Shorts 

Dilley  Company,  C.  L.,  Logansport,  Ind. 
Dilley’s  No.  1 Chop  Feed 

Dillsboro  Milling  Company,  Dillsboro,  Ind. 

Wheat  Shorts 

Mixed  Feed  

Dixie  Mills  Company,  East  St.  Louis,  111. 

Dixie  Corn  & Oats  Chop 

Dodd  & Son,  H.  C.,  Charlestown,  Ind. 

Mill  Offal  

Dodge  Mfg.  Co.,  Mishawaka,  Ind. 

Bran  

Middlings  

Donahue  Stratton  Company,  Milwaukee,  Wis. 
Wheat  Bran  with  Screenings  Not  to  Exceed 

Mill  Run  r - rrr-T" 

Wheat  Middlings  with  Screenings  Not  to  Ex- 
ceed Mill  Run — . 


Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

195 

3.7 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

196 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

3C38 

3.5 

9.0 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

7555 

3.8 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

7556 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

8372 

6.0 

11.0 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

5389 

4.0 

15.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran 

5472 

5.0 

15.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

7187 

4.5 

14.0 

15.0 

Wheat  bran 

7188 

5.0 

14.0 

9.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

7259 

4.0 

13.0 

13.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

8553 

6.0 

9.0 

6.0 

Corn  feed  meal  from  yellow  and 
white  corn 

8555 

4.3 

16.0 

7.7 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

8582 

5.0 

15.0 

4.0 

Low  grade  wheat  flour  containing 
the  finer  particles  of  wheat  bran 

8705 

4.8 

15.3 

10.4 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings  not  exceeding  mill 
run 

8761 

3.0 

14.0 

5.5 

Rye  middlings,  ground  rye  screen- 
ings 

S319 

6.0 

9.0 

11.0 

Corn  bran 

3616 

2.5 

7.0 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

5840 

5.0 

15.0 

9.5 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

5841 

4.0 

14.5 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

6944 

4.5 

15.5 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

8581 

4.0 

16.0 

4.0 

Low  grade  wheat  flour  containing 
the  finer  particles  of  wheat  bran 

3181 

3.0 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran 

3632 

2.5 

12.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

7951 

3.5 

9.0 

7.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

1008 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

4053 

2.9 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  wheat  dust 

7693 

3.0 

8.0 

10.0 

Corn  and  oats 

2338 

4.0 

14.0 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  middlings, 
ground  wheat  screenings 

9290 

4.0 

15.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

9291 

4.5 

15.0 

6.0 

Wheat  middlings 

8881 

4.5 

14.3 

14.6 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

8882 

4.5 

16.2 

8.4 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

i"  Succeeded  by  James  H.  Deck 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

a 

fi  c 

fi 

c8 

a 

LABEL 

£ .o 

<u  . j-j 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 

03  -*-> 

03  C*H 

03  C ft 

i.  -P 

O C'H 

following  ingredients 

is 

'3 

56 

o 

iJg® 

J&g 

a a u 

JW  03  a, 

-g  K s 
? i ft  t> 

O £ 3 
£ 2>  U 

P.  o 

Donmeyer,  Gardner  & Co.,  Peoria,  111. 

Pure  Wheat  Middlings  

Wheat  Bran  with  Screenings  Not  to  exceed 
Mill  Run  

Standard  Middlings  or  Shorts 

Doolittle  Mills,  Doolittle  Mills,  Ind. 

Bran  and  Middlings 

Dotson  & Sons,  Chas.,  Parker,  Ind. 

Rye  Mixed  Peed  

Dreyer  Commission  Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Corn  Peed  Meal  

White  Corn  Feed  Meal 

W.  Corn  Peed  Meal 

Dubois  Milling  Company,  Dubois,  Ind. 

Bran  & Shorts  

Duglay  & Jones,  Churubusco,  Ind.11 

Wheat  Middlings  

Wheat  Bran  

Dunlap  Grain  Company,  The  J.  M., 

Franklin,  Ind. 

Middlings  & Screenings j 

“Dairy”  Wheat  Bran 

Eagle  Roller  Mill  Company,  New  Ulm,  Minn. 

Superb  Red  Dog 

Wheat  Middlings  with  Ground  Screenings 

not  Exceeding  Mill  Run 

Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings  not 

Exceeding  Mill  Run 

Rye  Middlings  with  Ground  Screenings  not 

Exceeding  Mill  Run 

Flour  Middlings  with  Ground  Screenings  not 

Exceeding  Mill  Run 

Barley  Mixed  Peed  with  Ground  Barley 
Screenings  

Early  & Daniel  Company,  The,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 
Bran  & Screenings  

Middlings  & Screenings  

Mixed  Peed  and  Screenings 

Eberts  & Bro.,  Charlestown,  Ind. 

“Bran”  

“Ship  Stuff”  ” 

Eberts’  Mixed  Feed 

Pure  Mixed  Peed 

Bran  & Screenings  

Middlings  & Ground  Screenings 

Eberts  & Bro.,  North  Vernon,  Ind. 

Corn  Bran  

Eberts’  Mix-Peed  

Eberts  C.  & O.  Peed 

Mixed  Feed  


2612 

4.5 

15.0 

8.0 

6208 

4.0 

14.0 

11.0 

9009 

4.5 

15.0 

8.0 

8345 

3.5 

14.0 

8.0 

9232 

2.0 

11.0 

8.0 

8606 

8.0 

8.0 

11.5 

8632 

3.0 

10.0 

6.0 

8655 

3.5 

8.0 

5.0 

1192 

3.6 

13.0 

10.0 

7468 

3.0 

13.0 

7.0 

7469 

3.0 

13.0 

10.0 

8668 

3.5 

14.0 

8.0 

8669 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

3555 

5.7 

20.7 

3.8 

0687 

4.5 

15.4 

9.5 

7105 

3.4 

14.0 

11.0 

7604 

3.5 

16.0 

7.0 

7701 

4.2 

14.5 

8.0 

9404 

2.0 

8.0 

20.0 

7273 

4.0 

14.5 

10.0 

7274 

4.0 

15.0 

8.0 

8385 

3.0 

14.0 

10.0 

2014 

3.9 

14.1 

10.0 

2015 

4.5 

15.8 

7.0 

5241 

4.3 

16.0 

11.0 

5242 

4.5 

15.1 

6.5 

6570 

3.5 

14.1 

10.0 

6571 

3.8 

16.0 

8.0 

1242 

5.0 

8.0 

13.0 

2052 

4.0 

15.5 

8.0 

3742 

3.5 

9.0 

6.0 

4151 

4.0 

15.5 

11.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  to  exceed  mill  run 
Wheat  middlings 


Wheat  bran,  middlings 


Rye  bran,  rye  middlings 


Corn  feed  meal 
Corn  feed  meal 
Corn  feed  meal 


Wheat  bran,  wheat  shorts 


Wheat  middlings 
Wheat  bran 


Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 
Wheat  bran 


Low  grade  wheat  flour  containing 
the  finer  particles  of  wheat  bran 
Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 
Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 
Rye  middlings,  ground  rye  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 
Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 
Barley  bran,  barley  middlings,  barley 
hulls,  ground  barley  screenings 

Wheat  bran,  whole  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 
Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 
Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  not  exceeding  mill 
run 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  middlings,  wheat  shorts 
Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran, 
ground  wheat  screenings 
Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings 
Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Corn  bran 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings 
Corn  and  oats 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 


1 Succeeded  by  A.  A.  Jones 


26 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Eberts  & Bro.,  North  Vernon,  Ind. 

Wheat  Shorts 

5418 

4.0 

15.0 

7.0 

Wheat  shorts 

“0”  Mixed  Feed  _ _ 

5612 

3.5 

11.0 

12.0 

Corn,  wheat  bran,  middlings, 
ground  wheat  screenings 

Corn  Feed  Meal 

7669 

2.5 

7.5 

5.0 

Com  feed  meal 

Eberts  Grain  Company,  Nabb,  Ind. 

Eberts  Grain  Co.  Mixed  Feed  ___  

4970 

4.0 

15.5 

8.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

Eckert,  Andrew  W.,  Jasper,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed 

7756 

4.0 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  whole  wheat 
screenings 

Eckhart  Milling  Company,  B.  A.,  Chicago,  111. 

Bran  and  Screenings  

6194 

4.0 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Wheat  and  Rye  Middlings  with  Ground 

Wheat  Screenings  not  Exceeding  Mill  Run__ 

8673 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings,  rye  middlings, 
ground  wheat  screenings  not  exceed- 
ing mill  run 

Mixed  Feed  - - 

8674 

4.0 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  rye 
middlings,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

Flour  Middlings  _ 

8675 

4.0 

15.0 

7.0 

Wheat  and  rye  flour  middlings 

Eclipse  Mill,  The,  Ramsey,  Ind. 

Mill  Feed  _ . _ 

2485 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings 

Eclipse  Mixed  Feed  _ 

3455 

3.5 

13.5 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  screenings 

Edinger  & Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

Wheat  Bran  & Wheat  Screenings  _ 

7205 

4.0 

14.5 

10.0 

Wheat  Middlings  and  Wheat  Screenings 

7206 

4.5 

15.5 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Wheat  Mixed  Feed  & Wheat  Screenings.  ___ 

7207 

4.0 

15.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings  not  exceeding  mill 
run 

Arrow  Feed  Meal 

7811 

3.9 

8.7 

2.5 

Corn  feed  meal 

Edgerton  Milling  Company,  Edgerton,  Ohio 

Dutsch’s  Mixed  Feed  ..  ..  ..  

Edwardsport  Mills,  Edwardsport,  Ind. 

7213 

3.0 

14.0 

10.0 

Winter  wheat  bran,  middlings, 
ground  wheat  screenings  not  to  ex- 
ceed mill  run 

Wheat  Shorts  _ 

6830 

3.0 

13.0 

7.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Wheat  Bran  ...  - 

7210 

3.0 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Eesley  & Company,  Wm.,  College  Comer,  Ohio 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  Middlings  ...  

2921 

4.0 

14.0 

■Rran 

3220- 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Mixed  Feed  __  _ 

4264 

3.0 

13.5 

13.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings, corn  bran 

Egloff  Milling  Company,  Vincennes,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran,  Ground  Screenings  and  Corn 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings, corn  bran 

Wheat  shorts 

Bran  _ 

6053 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  Shorts  _ 

6054 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Mixed  Feed  __  _ 

6873 

3.5 

14.0 

8.6 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran, 
ground  wheat  screenings 

Egloff  Sons,  A.,  St.  Meinrad,  Ind. 

Wheat  bran,  whole  wheat  screenings, 
com  bran 

Bran  & Screenings  

2591 

3.0 

14.0 

8.5 

Shorts  

2749 

3.8 

15.0 

4.2 

Wheat  shorts 

Elizabeth  Milling  Company,  Elizabeth,  Ind. 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

E.  M.  Co’s  Wheat  Bran  and  Middlings 

8410 

3.7 

14.0 

10.0 

Emison,  J.  & S.,  Vincennes,  Ind. 

Wheat  middlings 

Middlings  

1536 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Mixed  Feed  

4237 

3.0 

14.0 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  whole  wheat  screenings 

Emisons  Mixed  Feed  & Middlings 

5768 

3.5 

14.0 

8.5 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  whole  wheat 
screenings 

Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


LABEL 


Emison  & Company,  J.  & S.,  Vincennes,  Ind. 
Feed  Meal 

Emmert,  C.  B.,  Clarksburg,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  

Empire  Milling  Company,  Minneapolis,  Minn. 
Empire  Milling  Co.  Wheat  Bren  with  Ground 

Screenings  not  Exceeding  Mill  Run 

Empire  Milling  Company  Wheat  Standard 
Middlings  with  Ground  Screenings  Not 

Exceeding  Mill  Run 

Empire  Milling  Company  Wheat  Flour  Mid- 
dlings with  Ground  Screenings  Not  Ex- 
ceeding Mill  Run 

English  Milling  Company,  English,  Ind. 

English  Milling  Co.  Mixed  Feed 

Enos,  M.  T.,  New  Albany,  Ind. 

Corn  Bran 

Wheat  Middlings  

Wheat  Bran  

Rolled  Oats  & Corn 

Corn  Feed  Meal 

Enterprise  Milling  Company,  Milroy,  Ind. 

Bran  & Screenings 

Middlings  

Erie  Elevator,  The,  Rochester,  Ind. 

Corn  & Oat  Chop 

Erwin,  J.  C.,  Inwood,  Ind. 

Corn  and  Oats  Chop 

Etna  Lumber  & Milling  Company, 

Etna  Green,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  

Etna  Bran  & Screenings T__ 

Etna  Middlings  & Screenings  

Everett,  Aughenbaugh  & Company, 

Waseca,  Minn. 

Eaco  Winged  Horse  Mixed  Feed 

E-A-CO  Wheat  Middlings  and  Ground  Screen- 
ings — 

E-A-CO  Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings. 

E-A-CO  Mixed  Feed 

Ewing  Mill  Company,  Ewing,  Ind. 

Ewing  Mill  Co’s  Mixed  Feed 

Fairplay  Feed  Mills,  Linton,  Ind. 

Feed  Meal 

Farmers  Elevator  Company,  The, 

Jamestown,  Ind. 

Corn  Feed  Meal  

Mixed  Bran  & Screenings 

Wheat  Middlings  & Screenings 

Mixed  Feed  


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  nrotein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
i following  ingredients 

1 

1 

4464 

3.0 

8.0 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

6929 

3.0 

13.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

7393 

4.0 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

7394 

4.0 

15.0 

9.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

7395 

4.5 

17.0 

5.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

966 

4.0 

14.1 

9.2 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran, 
ground  wheat  screenings 

2499 

5.0 

9.0 

13.0 

Corn  bran 

4082 

3.4 

15.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings 

4063 

3.4 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

4637 

2.5 

7.5 

13.0 

Corn,  oats 

5034 

1.3 

6.1 

8.0 

Com  feed  meal 

2077 

2.9 

14.1 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

2317 

3.8 

14.2 

6.3 

Wheat  middlings 

3416 

3.5 

8.5 

10.0 

Corn,  oats 

8430 

3.5 

9.0 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

5860 

4.0 

9.0 

8.0 

Corn,  oats,  rye,  corn  bran 

6659 

4.0 

14.5 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  not  exceeding  mill’s  run 
of  ground  cleaned  wheat  screenings 

6660 

4.0 

16.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings,  not  exceeding  mill’s 
ran  of  ground  cleaned  wheat  screen- 
ings 

4397 

3.0 

15.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings 

5440 

3.0 

15.0 

10.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

6024 

3.0 

14.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

9410 

3.0 

15.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings  not  to  exceed  mill 
run 

2497 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts 

6503 

2.5 

7.0 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

8867 

2.5 

7.5 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

8868 

3.0 

13.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

9135 

3.0 

13.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

9136 

3.0 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

28 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Farmers  Feed  Store,  Borden,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  - _ — — 

1093 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  Shorts - - 

1094 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Mixed  Feed  

5261 

4.0 

14.0 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

Farmers  Grain  & Milling  Company, 

Union  City,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  & Screenings  . __  - _ 

Farmers  Mill,  The,  Huntingburg,  Ind. 

8259 

2.5 

12.5 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Farmers  Mixed  Feed — 

Farmers  Mill  & Elevator  Company, 

Columbia  City,  Ind. 

9133 

3.0 

13.0 

14.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  corn  bran,  rye 
bran,  rye  shorts,  crushed  wheat 
screenings,  mill  sweepings,  wheat 
scourings 

Chop  Feed 

8950 

3.0 

8.0 

10.0 

Corn,  oats,  rye,  barley,  corn  feed 
meal 

Mixed  Bran  & Screenings 

8951 

3.0 

13.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

Wheat  Middlings  & Screenings 

8952 

2.5 

12.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Farmers  Milling  & Elevator  Company, 
Veedersburg,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  _ 

5000 

3.0 

12.0 

14.0 

Wheat  bran 

No.  1 Mixed  Feed 

5598 

4.0 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

Wheat  Shorts  

7577 

2.0 

12.0 

10.0 

Wheat  shorts 

No.  2 Mixed  Feed __  __ 

9321 

2.0 

8.0 

10.0 

Rye  bran,  rye  middlings 

Farmland  City  Flour  Mills,  The, 

Farmland,  Ind. 

Wheat  Shorts — 

1658 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Wheat  Bran  __  — _ 

1659 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Feed  Products  Milling  Company,  Chicago,  111. 

Corn  Feed  Meal  __  

5954 

2.7 

8.5 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Felknor,  W.  A.,  Prospect,  Ind. 

Corn  Bran  . 

9237 

2.5 

7.0 

10.0 

Corn  bran 

Ferger  Grain  Company,  The,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 

Nutritia  Winter  Wheat  Bran  and  Screenings-- 

8392 

4.0 

14.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  3%  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Nutritia  Eye  Middlings  and  Screenings _ 

Nutritia  Winter  Wheat  Middlings  and  Screen- 

8393 

3.0 

15.0 

7.0 

Rye  middlings,  3%  ground  rye  screen- 
ings 

ings  — 

8394 

3.5 

15.0 

10.0 

Wheat  middlings,  3%  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Fette,  Nicholas  H.,  New  Alsace,  Ind. 

Fette’s  Cleaned  Wheat  Middlings 

2603 

3.2 

13.8 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Fette’s  Cleaned  Wheat  Bran __ 

2604 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Fisher  Bros.,  Evansville,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  and  Screenings 

8715 

4.0 

14.0 

9.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Wheat  Bran  with  Screenings 

8718 

3.5 

13.0 

13.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Mixed  Bran,  Middlings  and  Wheat  Screenings. 

8876 

3.5 

14.0 

13.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  whole  wheat 
screenings 

Rye  Mixed  Feed  & Ground  Rye  Screenings 

9213 

3.0 

13.6 

11.0 

Rye  bran,  rye  middlings,  ground  rye 
screenings 

Diamond  Corn  and  Oats  Chops 

9281 

3.5 

9.0 

14.0 

Corn,  oats 

Fisher  & Fallgatter,  Waupaca,  Wis. 

Rye  Feed 

8822 

3.0 

15.0 

8.0 

Rye  bran,  rye  middlings 

Flater,  Joda,  Alfordsville,  Ind. 

Joda  Flater  Wheat  Bran  

576 

3.7 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Joda  Flater  Wheat  Middlings _ 

577 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Flat  Rock  Cave  Mills,  Shelbyville,  R.  R.  3,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran - _ 

1350 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Shorts  

1351 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

29 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


LABEL 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


cn  Cft 


O • n 
^ -4J  ZZ 
O 


and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Fohl  & Son,  Casper,  Cedar  Grove,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  

Mixed  Feed  

Follett  & Company,  R.  J.,  Carmel,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  

Forest  Park  Mills,  North  Terre  Haute,  Ind. 

Mill  Feed  

Corn  Feed  Meal  

Corn  Bran  

Fornax  Milling  Company,  Decatur,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings,  Corn  Bran  and  Ground 
Wheat  Screenings 

Fortville  Milling  Company,  Fortville,  Ind. 
Fortville  Milling  Co’s  Corn  & Oats  Chop 

Fourteen  Mile  Valley  Mills,  R.  R.  2, 

Lexington,  Ind. 

Mixed  Middlings  and  Sweepings 

Wheat  Bran  and  Sweepings ., 

Germ  Middlings  and  Sweepings 

Fowler,  A.,  Pittsboro,  Ind. 

Corn  & Oats  Chop 

Fredericksburg  Milling  Company,  The, 
Fredericksburg,  Ind. 

Wheat  Shorts  

Blue  River  Mixed  Feed 

Freed  & Lewis,  Campbellsburg,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  

Freeport  Roller  Mills,  Freeport,  Ind. 

H.  Baiting’s  Composition  Feed 

Friedrich  & Son,  C.  W.,  Dyer,  Ind. 

Buckwheat  Feed 

Rye  Mixed  Feed 

Mixed  Feed  

Friendship  Milling  Company,  Friendship,  Ind. 

Shorts  _ 

Wheat  Bran  

Fuhrer-Ford  Milling  Company,  Mt.  Vernon,  Ind 
Mixed  Feed — Wheat  Bran,  Middlings  and 
Screenings  

Wheat  Middlings  

Wheat  Bran  & Screenings 

Wheat  Shorts  

Silver  Feed  

Fulks,  Willard,  Stonehead,  Ind. 

Fulks  Mixed  Feed  

Fyke  Milling  Company,  LaGrange,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  & Screenings 

Wheat  Bran  & Screenings 

Gandy  & Company,  O.,  South  Whitley,  Ind. 
Chop  Feed  


o 

Zi  ft  o 

Z,  ft  u 

8418 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

8419 

3.8 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

3163 

3.7 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  corn  bran 

5817 

3.8 

9.8 

6.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran, 
ground  wheat  screenings 

7927 

2.5 

7.5 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

9227 

3.8 

7.0 

12.0 

Corn  bran 

9143 

4.5 

15.0 

9.0 

Wheat  middlings,  corn  bran,  ground 
wheat  screenings  not  exceeding  mill 
run 

1230 

3.9 

9.5 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

3879 

2.5 

13.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings,  sweepings 

5303 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  sweepings 

5304 

2.5 

14.0 

9.0 

Wheat  middlings,  sweepings 

2648 

3.5 

9.0 

9.0 

Corn,  oats 

2280 

3.0 

13.0 

7.0 

Wheat  shorts 

3668 

3.0 

12.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

6062 

3.0 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran 

406 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  middlings, 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

2713 

1.7 

7.7 

30.0 

Buckwheat  hulls,  middlings 

2715 

2.0 

12.0 

10.0 

Rye  bran,  rye  middlings 

271ff 

3.5 

14.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  chaff 

960 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

4379 

3.5 

14.0 

9.5 

Wheat  bran 

2386 

3.9 

14.0 

9.5 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

4682 

3.5 

14.0 

6.3 

Wheat  middlings 

8793 

3.7 

14.0 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  mill  run  ground  screen- 
ings 

8794 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

9101 

3.8 

15.8 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

7113 

3.5 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

6422 

3.5 

13.5 

10.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

6423 

3.5 

13.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

3927 

3.0 

8.5 

8.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

30 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  SaleJ  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

Gard,  Geo.  N.,  Schererville,  Ind. 

Chopped  Feed  

6946 

3.0 

9.0 

6.0 

Garland  Milling  Company,  Greensburg,  Ind. 

Garland  Bran  & Screenings  

7279 

3.7 

15.0 

10.9 

Garland  Mixed  Feed — — 

7280 

4.0 

15.5 

9.4 

Garland  Middlings  and  Screenings 

7281 

4.3 

.16.5 

7.9 

Rye  Mixed  Feed  & Ground  Rye  Screenings 

9235 

3.0 

17.0 

8.0 

Garrett  & Funk,  Liberty  Center,  Ind. 

Ship  Stuff  __  ______  

1561 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  Bran  & Middlings 

5123 

2.5 

12.5 

10.0 

Garrett  Elevator  Company,  Garrett,  Ind. 

Ground  Mill  Feed 

9071 

3.0 

10.0 

10.0 

Gary  Supply  Company,  Gary,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  ___  _ _ 

1379 

4.0 

14.0 

10.0 

Mixed  Feed  — 

2743 

3.9 

14.0 

11.0 

Gaston  Roller  Mill,  Gaston,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  & Middlings  _ 

5508 

3.0 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  Middlings  _ _ _ 

5509 

2.0 

12.0 

7.0 

Geneva  Milling  & Grain  Company,  Geneva,  Ind. 

Miller’s  Wheat  Bran __  

3109 

3.3 

14.0 

10.0 

Shorts  & Middlings  _ 

7527 

2.5 

13.0 

8.0 

Mixed  Feed 

9.263 

3.0 

13.0 

10.0 

Gentryville  Roller  Mills,  Gentryville,  Ind. 

Gentryville  Mixed  Feed 

3507 

3.5 

13.5 

11.0 

Gibson  Live  Stock  & Feed  Co.,  Princeton,  Ind. 

Pilgrim  Corn  & Oats  Chop  __  _____  

9122 

2.5 

7.0 

9.0 

Gilman,  S.  B.,  Summitville,  Ind. 

Gilman’s  Mixed  Feed  __  

3216 

3.7 

12.5 

12.0 

Glen  Echo  Mills,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Bower’s  Chop _ _ _ 

1086 

3:5 

8.0 

7.0 

Corn  Bran  __  

4515 

2.4 

9.0 

13.0 

Corn  Feed  Meal  (Siftings  from  Cracked  Corn) 

5637 

2.0 

7.0 

8.0 

Globe  Mills,  The,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind. 

The  Globe  Mills  Wheat  Bran  _ 

425 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

The  Globe  Mills  Wheat  Shorts  

426 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

The  Globe  Mills  Corn  & Oats  Chop.  

427 

3.9 

9.5 

6.0 

Goodrich  Bros.  Hay  & Grain  Company, 
Winchester,  Ind. 

Climax  Rye  Middlings  with  Screenings 

7841 

3.0 

14.0 

11.0 

Goshen  Milling  Company,  The,  Goshen,  Ind. 

Bran  _ _ _ _ 

66 

3.7 

15.4 

9.5 

Mixed  Bran  

1594 

3.8 

14.0 

11.0 

“A”  Mixed  Feed 

3155 

3.8 

13.5 

11.5 

Chop  Feed  _ _ 

3238 

3.7 

9.8 

4.5 

Island  Park  Chop  _ 

5923 

3.0 

8.5 

7.0 

Wheat  Middlings  and  Ground  Wheat  Screen- 

ings _ . 

7471 

3.2 

13.5 

7.0 

Goshen  Milling  Co’s  Mixed  Feed 

9064 

4.0 

14.0 

10.0 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Corn,  oats 


Wheat  bran,  grouftd  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 
Wheat  bran,  middlings,  cleanings, 
ground  wheat  screenings  not  exceed- 
ing mill  run 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 
Rye  bran,  rye  middlings,  mill  run 
ground  rye  screenings 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 
Wheat  bran,  middlings 


Corn,  oats,  rye,  barley,  whole  screen- 
ings from  wheat,  oats,  rye  and  bar- 
ley 

Wheat  middlings 
Wheat  bran,  screenings 


Wheat  bran,  middlings 
Wheat  middlings 


Wheat  bran 

Wheat  shorts,  middlings 
Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran 


Wheat  bran,  middlings,  screenings 


Corn,  oats 


Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran 


Corn,  oats 
Corn  bran 
Corn  feed  meal 


Wheat  bran 
Wheat  shorts 
Corn,  oats 


Rye  middlings,  ground  rye  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

Wheat  bran 
Wheat  bran,  corn  bran 
Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings, corn  bran 
Corn, oats 
Corn,  oats,  rye 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings  


3i 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 


Goshen  Milling  Company,  The,  Goshen,  Tnd. 
Wheat  Bran  and  Ground  Wheat  Screenings— 

Corn  Mill  Feed 

Goshorn,  Jesse,  Washington,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  

Chop  Feed 

Gotto,  O.  W.,  Michigan  City,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed 

Wheat  Bran  and  Screenings 

Graft,  C.  V.,  Winchester,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  

Corn  Bran  — 1 

Bran  & Middlings  

Graft  Wheat  Middlings 

Great  Northern  Flour  Mills  Company, 
Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings  not 
Exceeding  Mill  Run 

Wheat  Middlings..  

Green  Bros.  & Oldfather,  Warsaw,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  

Wheat  Middlings  

Greenfield  Mills,  Greenfield  Mills,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  

Greenfield  Milling  Company,  Greenfield,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  

Bran  

Shorts  

Corn  Bran  

Corn  Feed  Meal 

Griffin  & Dix,  Terre  Haute,  Ind. 

Chop  

Gross,  L.  J.,  Sandborn,  Ind.12 
Wheat  Shorts  

Habig  Bros.,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Habigs  Corn  Feed  Meal 

Hales  & Edwards  Company,  Chicago,  111. 

Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings  (Not 

exceeding  Mill  Run)  

Wheat  Middlings  (With  Screenings  not  ex- 
ceeding Mill  Run)  

Wheat  Middlings  

Hall  Milling  Company,  W.  C.,  Brazil,  Ind. 

Hall’s  Wheat  Bran  

Hall’s  Bran  & Screenings 

Hall’s  Wheat  Shorts  

Corn  Feed  Meal  

Hall’s  Mixed  Feed  

Hammel  Milling  Company,  Fremont,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  

Wheat  Middlings  111111111111 

12  Succeeded  by  Walker  & Crane 


a 

c 

£ C 

rt 

£ .4, 

1 2 
+->  . o 

$ u 
a) 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 

m ctf 

CO  C«H 

Sc  ft 

U 7Z 

2 

following  ingredients 

A v 

IgS 

^ a « 

9129 

3.5 

14.5 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

9273 

3.5 

8.5 

5.0 

Corn  bran,  corn  meal 

6840 

3.0 

10.0 

9.0 

Corn,  wheat  bran,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

7168 

2.8 

8.7 

7.0 

Corn,  oats,  rye,  com  feed  meal 

6885 

3.2 

9.0 

8.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

8403 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  whole  and  ground 
wheat  screenings 

3484 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

3833 

3.5 

8.5 

10.0 

Corn  bran 

3904 

4.0 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

5097 

3.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

7486 

4.0 

14.5 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

7487 

5.0 

15.0 

9.5 

Wheat  middlings 

7919 

3.5 

14.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran 

8369 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

2412 

4.0 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

4488 

3.0 

15.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts 

44-39 

3.0 

15.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

4470 

3.0 

15.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

5140 

2.0 

6.0 

13.0 

Corn  bran 

7540 

2.5 

7.0 

6.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

893 

3.9 

9.0 

5.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn,  oats 

4267 

3.5 

14.0 

7.4 

Wheat  shorts 

7844 

1.8 

8.0 

6.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

7509 

3.0 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

7643 

3.5 

14.0 

12.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

8476 

3.0 

15.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

412 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

3806 

3.0 

13.0 

9.0 

WTheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

5023 

2.0 

13.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

5131 

3.0 

7.0 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

9162 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings, 
ground  wheat  screenings  not  exceed- 
ing mill  run 

3154 

3.8 

14.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran 

3578 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings 

32 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Hampton,  W.  D.,  Worthington,  Ind.13 

Wheat  Bran  

1124 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Mixed  Feed  

1788 

3.3 

11.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings 

Wheat  Shorts  

2220 

2.3 

12.8 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Corn  Bran __  __  _____  _ 

3673 

4,0 

7.8 

13.0 

Corn  bran 

Hamilton  & Kellner,  Rensselaer,  Ind.14 

“A”  Chop  Feed 

Hanks  Company,  The  Howard  H.,  Chicago,  111. 

5087 

3.0 

8.0 

9.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Wheat  Bran  _ _ ___  __ 

5555 

3.0 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran 

Corn  Feed  Meal  .__  __  _ 

Wheat  Middlings  and  Ground  Wheat  Screen- 

6101 

2.7 

8.5 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

ings  _ 

6581 

3.7 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Wheat  Bran  & Screenings „ 

6070 

3.0 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Hanna,  L.  G.,  Logansport,  Ind. 

Hanna’s  Corn  & Oats  Chop  _ 

3535 

3.5 

9.0 

9.0 

Corn,  oats 

Hanover  Star  Milling  Company, 

Germantown,  111. 

Hanover  Star  Milling  Co.  Winter  Wheat  Bran 

743 

3.7 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Hanover  Star  Milling  Co.  Wheat  Middlings— 

744 

5.0 

15.4 

5.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Hardin  & Son,  Ladoga,  Ind. 

Hardin  & Son’s  Mill  Feed 

3482 

2.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  middlings,  low 
grade  flour,  corn  bran 

Harmon  & Wallace  Milling  Company, 

Owens ville,  Ind. 

Royal  Mixed  Feed  _ __  _ _ 

Harris  & Bell,  Montgomery,  Ind.15 

7559 

3.5 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  whole  and 
ground  wheat  screenings,  corn  bran, 
dust  collector  dust,  chaff 

Wheat  Bran,  Screenings  and  Corn  Bran_ 

3938 

3.6 

12.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  crushed  wheat  screen- 
ings, corn  bran 

Mixed  Feed  

7167 

3.0 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings,  corn  feed  meal 

Fine  Mixed  Mill  Feed 

8143 

2.5 

12.5 

9.0 

Harris  Milling  Company,  Greencastle,  Ind. 

Harris’  Middlings  

211 

3.6 

14.5 

7.5 

Wheat  middlings 

Harris’  Mixed  Feed  

212 

3.5 

14.1 

1Q.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

Harris’  Cracked  Corn  Siftings 

5139 

3.2 

8.0 

5.6 

Corn  feed  meal 

Corn  Bran __  _ 

7667 

3.5 

7.0 

14.0 

Corn  bran 

Harris’  Rye  Mixed  Feed 

9389 

2.0 

12.0 

5.0 

Rye  bran,  rye  middlings 

Harris  Milling  Company,  Montgomery,  Ind. 

Wheat  bran,  crushed  wheat  screen- 
ings, corn  bran 

Wheat  Bran,  Screenings  and  Corn  Bran._ 

8745 

2.5 

12.0 

10.0 

Fine  Mixed  Mill  Feed 

8746 

2.5 

12.5 

9.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings,  corn  feed  meal 

Hartford  City  Grain  & Milling  Company, 
Hartford  City,  Ind. 

“Cooley’s  Corn  & Oat  Chop” 

340 

3.9 

9.5 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

Cooley’s  Mixed  Feed _______ 

2371 

3.0 

12.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  whole  wheat 
screenings 

Hartman  & Sons,  Louis,  New  Albany,  Ind. 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground  corn 
screenings 

Mixed  Feed  __  __ 

1979 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Hartz,  Bernard,  Chrisney,  Ind. 

Corn  feed  meal 

Corn  Feed  Meal _ _. 

1 8487 

I 2.5 

1 7.0 

5.0 

13  Succeeded  by  Hayes  Milling  Co. 

14  Succeeded  by  Kellner  & Callahan 

15  Succeeded  by  Harris  Milling  Co. 


33 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 


and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Hartz  & Carey  Milling  Company, 

Chrisney,  Ind. 

Shipstuff  — 

Mixed  Feed  

Bran  and  Screenings  

Harvest  City  Mills,  R.  R.  28,  Edinburg,  Ind. 
Mixed  Feed  

Havens,  P.  W.,  Hartford  City,  Ind. 

Havens’  Chop  Feed  

Haynes  Milling  Company,  The,  Portland,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  

Corn  & Oats  Chop  Feed 

Bran  

Wheat  Middlings  

“Haynes  Mixed  Feed” 

Haynes  Special  Mixed  Feed 

Mary  Putney  Chop  Feed 

Corn  Feed  Meal 

Hays  Milling  Company,  Worthington,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  

Wheat  Shorts 

Haysville  Milling  Company,  Haysville,  Ind. 
Mixed  Feed  

Wheat  Shorts  

Hazleton  Flour  Mills,  The,  Hazleton,  Ind. 
Mixed  Feed  


Wheat  Shorts  

Heaton,  E.  H.,  R.  R.  12,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  

Corn  Bran  

Heitschmidt,  A.  C.,  Michigan  City,  Ind. 
Chop  Feed  

Hendrix  & Abel,  Putnamville,  Ind. 

Corn  & Oats  Chop 

Henline,  M.  S.,  Ossian,  Ind. 

Corn  & Oats  Chop 

Mixed  Feed  "III! 

Herbert  & Sons,  Joseph,  Millhousen,  Ind. 
Herbert’s  Mixed  Feed  

Hering  & King,  R.  R.  5,  Shelbyville,  Ind. 
Mixed  Bran  and  Screenings 

Hershman  & Son,  Tipton,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

Hills,  H.  B.,  Fremont,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran 

Wheat  Middlings  IIIIIIIIIIIIIII,! 


8685 

4.0 

16.0 

7.0 

Wheat  shorts,  middlings,  reddog 
flour 

8686 

4.0 

16.0 

7.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  ground  wheat 
screenings,  corn  bran 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

8687 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

2563 

3.5 

13.5 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran 

7688 

3.5 

8.5 

8.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

92 

3.7 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

93 

3.9 

9.5 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

4094 

3.5 

15.2 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran 

Wheat  middlings 

4389 

3.0 

14.0 

7.0 

7893 

3.5 

15.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

7894 

3.5 

14.5 

10.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

8542 

3.2 

9.0 

6.5 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

9246 

5.0 

8.0 

10.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

9037 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

9038 

2.3 

12.8 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

60£0 

3.0 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

6439 

2.0 

12.0 

6.0 

Wheat  shorts 

7174 

3.0 

12.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  dust  collector 
dust,  wheat  chaff 

7475 

3.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  shorts 

5931 

3.0 

13.5 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

5932 

3.0 

6.0 

13.0 

Corn  bran 

5672 

3.0 

9.0 

8.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

9357 

3.0 

9.0 

8.0 

Corn,  oats 

3263 

3.5 

9.0 

8.0 

Corn,  oats 

6806 

2.5 

12.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran 

7101 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  shorts,  corn 
bran 

7219 

3.2 

13.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

4898 

3.2 

8.7 

14.0 

Corn,  oats,  rye,  corn  feed  meal 

1653 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

4 0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


— 

Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

— 7 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Hitch,  J.  H.,  Princeton,  Ind. 

1 

9384 

3.0 

6.0 

13.0 

Corn  bran 

Hoag,  N.  S.,  Huntington,  Ind. 

8588 

2.8 

8.5 

9.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Hogan  Milling  Company,  The, 

Junction  City,  Kansas. 

7972 

3,5 

14.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  whole  wheat  screenings 

Holland,  Thos.  A.,  Port  Ritner,  Ind. 

8678 

3.5 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  corn  bran,  whole 

wheat  screenings 

Holland,  W.  R.,  Shelbyville,  R.  R.  3,  Ind. 

5459 

3.0 

12.5 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

5460 

3.0 

13.0 

14.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran 

Holland  Mills,  The,  Holland,  Ind. 

7131 

3.0 

13.0  • 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  crushed 

8200 

2.0 

12.0 

7.0 

wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

Wheat  middlings 

Holliday  & Son,  John,  Greentown,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  - --  --  

6188 

3.0 

9.0 

5.0 

Corn,  oats 

Hollingsworth,  S.  P.,  Russiaville,  Ind. 

Corn  & Oats  Chop  

Hollingsworth  Wheat  Shorts  - 

1518 

2941 

3.9 

2.5 

9.0 

13.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Corn,  oats 

Wheat  shorts 

Hollingsworth  Mixed  Feed  

7829 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  corn  bran 

Holton  Milling  Company,  The,  Holton,  Ind. 
Corn  & Oats  Chop  - 

3290 

3.5 

9.0 

8.0 

Corn,  oats 

A Mixed  Feed  - - 

7404 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  ground  wheat 

screenings,  corn  bran 

Home  Grain  Company,  LaGrange,  Ind. 
Middlings  

8573 

4.0 

16.5 

6.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Home  Mill  & Grain  Company,  Mt.  Vernon,  Ind. 
Corn  Bran  - 

2598 

5.0 

8.0 

13.0 

Corn  bran 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Mixed  Feed  

3237 

3.2 

14.4 

10.5 

Wheat  Middlings  & Screenings  _ 

7686 

4.0 

16.0 

6.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Hornung,  J.  M.,  Greensburg,  Ind. 

Middlings  

415 

3.8 

14.2 

9.7 

Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  Bran  _ 

417 

3.7 

14.1 

9.7 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Wheat  Bran  & Screen ings 

2577 

3.7 

14.1 

11.0 

A IVTivpd  Pppd  

8864 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings, 

ground  wheat  screenings 

Hosmer  Milling  Company,  0.  I., 

Leavenworth,  Ind. 

0 I Hosmer  Mixed  Feed 

7822 

3.4 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  shorts,  whole 

wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

Hubbard,  J.  W.,  Monrovia,  Ind. 

Mixed  Fppd  

7550 

3.0 

13.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  com  bran,  ground 

Wheat  Middlings  

7551 

3.5 

14.0 

8.0 

wheat  screenings 

Wheat  middlings 

Hubbard  Milling  Company,  Mankota,  Minn. 
Standard  Fine  Middlings  & Ground  Screen- 
mgs  _ 

8538 

5.0 

16.0 

11.5 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 
Wheat  bran 

Pure  Flakey  Bran  

8603 

3.0 

15.0 

13.0 

White  Flour  Middlings 

8607 

5.5 

18.0 

5.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Low  grade  wheat  flour  containing 

Sterling  Red  Dog  --  - - 

8608 

4.0 

17.0 

4.0 

the  finer  particles  of  wheat  bran 

Huffman,  L.  R.,  R.  R.  5,  Valparaiso,  Ind. 
Buckwheat  Mixed  Feed 

4823 

2 5 

12.0 

25.0 

Buckwheat  middlings,  hulls 

35 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  nrotein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Hughes,  John  F.,  Elwood,  Ind. 

Rye  Middlings  and  Ground  Screenings 

8012 

3.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Rye  middlings,  ground  rye  screenings 

Hunsicker  & Bender,  Bluffton,  Ind. 

Mixed  Bran  . . 

1558 

4.0 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran 

“A.  Wheat  Shorts” 

1559 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Hunter  & Company,  0.  L.,  Chicago,  111. 

Calumet  Mixed  Feed __ 

4960 

3.0 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

Calumet  Rye  Feed  . 

5352 

3.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Rye  bran,  rye  middlings 

Calumet  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings  not 
Exceeding  Mill  Run  _ __  ..  

6042 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Calumet  Middlings  with  Ground  Screenings 
not  Exceeding  Mill  Run 

6131 

4.0 

14.5 

8.0 

not  exceeding  mill  run 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 

Calumet  Mixed  Feed  with  Ground  Screenings 
not  Exceeding  Mill  Run  ___ 

8841 

4.8 

15.3 

10.4 

screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 
Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings, 

Hunter-Robinson-Wenz  Milling  Company, 

St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Mixed  Feed 

5218 

4.0 

15.0 

10.0 

ground  wrheat  screenings  not  exceed- 
ing mill  run 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  whole  wheat 

Bran  and  Screenings  

5219 

4.0 

14.5 

9.5 

screenings 

Wheat  bran,  whole  wheat  screenings 

Middlings  and  Screenings 

5220 

4.0 

15.0 

6.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 

Huntington  Mill  Company,  Huntington,  Ind. 
Bran  

491 

3.6 

14.2 

10.0 

screenings 

Wheat  bran 

Mixed  Feed  _ _ __ 

492 

3.8 

13.5 

6.4 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  ground  wheat 
screenings,  corn  bran 

Wheat  bran,  shorts 

Bran  and  Shorts  _ 

493 

3.9 

14.2 

9.5 

Shorts  

495 

3.9 

14.3 

5.4 

Wheat  shorts 

Hurn  Milling  Company,  W.  D., 

New  Salisbury,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  _ __ __  __  

7959 

3.5 

13.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  ground 

Wheat  Middlings  _ 

8089 

3.5 

13.0 

7.0 

wheat  screenings 

Wheat  middlings 

Hutchinson  Flour  Mills  Company,  The, 
Hutchinson,  Kansas. 

Mill  Run  Bran  - — . 

4995 

3.5 

15.5 

9.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  Shorts  _ _ 

4996 

4.0 

16.5 

6.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Fancy  White  Shorts  

7835 

3.0 

14.0 

3.5 

Wheat  shorts 

Wheat  Shorts  and  Wheat  Screenings  not 
Exceeding  Mill  Run  _ __  _ 

7836 

3.5 

16.0 

5.5 

Wheat  shorts,  ground  wheat  screen- 

Wheat Bran  and  Wheat  Screenings  Not 
Exceeding  Mill  Run  ... 

7838 

3.5 

14.5 

10.0 

ings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Wheat  bran,  whole  wheat  screenings 

Wheat  Mixed  Feed  and  Wheat  Screenings 

7865 

3.5 

15.5 

8.5 

not  exceeding  mill  run 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  shorts,  whole 

Ideal  Milling  & Grain  Company,  Ridgeville,  Ind. 
Mixed  Bran  and  Screenings  . 

7353 

2.5 

12.5 

10.0 

wheat  screenings  not  exceeding  mill 
run 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  ground 

Mixed  Feed  _ . 

7797 

2.5 

11.0 

6.0 

wheat  screenings 

Wheat  shorts,  middlings,  corn  feed 

Igleheart  Bros.,  Evansville,  Ind. 

Pure  Wheat  Bran  __  . ...  . __  

5771 

4.0 

14.5 

10.0 

meal 

Wheat  bran 

Pure  Wheat  Middlings  & Screenings  not 
Exceeding  Mill  Run  ..  

5772 

5.0 

16.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 
Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 

Pure  Mixed  Feed  . 

5773 

4.5 

15.5 

9.0 

Rye  Mixed  Feed  

9141 

3.0 

13.6 

11.0 

wheat  screenings  not  exceeding  mill 
run 

Rye  bran,  rye  middlings,  ground  rye 

Ilene  Grain  Company,  Ilene,  Ind. 

Crax.  Corn  and  Oats 

8442 

3.5 

9.0 

6.0 

screenings 

Corn,  oats 

Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

£ 

§ 

c e 

i .1 

9 

+*  % 
? -.a 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 

03  £ 

03  C & 

In  -t->  TZ 
O fi«H 

following  ingredients 

'5 

£ 

o 

.2  8® 
jo  T3 

g 1 2 

A ft  o 

<u  <U  (U 

. ro 

S ® 2 

A ft  o 

Sg* 

o 3 
A ft  o 

Imbs  Milling  Company,  J.  F.,  Belleville,  111. 
“Charm”  Bran  with  Ground  Wheat  Screen- 


ings 

7074 

3.5 

14.5 

10.0 

Middlings  and  Ground  Wheat  Screenings  Not 

in  Excess  to  Mill  Run __ 

7195 

4.0 

15.0 

5.0 

“Charm”  Mixed  Feed,  (Wheat  Bran,  Wheat 
Middlings  and  Ground  Wheat  Screenings 

not  to  Exceed  Mill  Run) 

8529 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Imperial  Mills,  The,  Cambridge  City,  Ind. 

Mixed  Bran  _ _ _ 

1752 

3.2 

12.0 

11.0 

Wheat  Middlings  and  Ground  Screenings 

7592 

3.7 

14.0 

7.0 

Indiana  Elevator  Company, 

Indianapolis,  Ind.16 

Corn  Bran  

4940 

3.5 

8.0 

13.0 

Gold  Medal  Chop  

5801 

3.0 

8.0 

9.0 

Corn  Feed  Meal 

7073 

2.7 

7.5 

5.0 

Indiana  Flour  Company,  Terre  Haute,  Ind. 

Pure  Wheat  Bran  _ - . 

4962 

3.0 

14.0 

10.0 

Pure  Bran  and  Shorts 

6190 

3.5 

14.0 

6.5 

Pure  Wheat  Shorts 

6191 

4.0 

15.0 

6.5 

Indiana  Milling  Company,  Terre  Haute,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  & Mill  Run  Screenings  .. 

5908 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Standard  Middlings  with  Ground  Screenings 

not  Exceeding  Mill  Run 

6787 

4.0 

14.5 

11.0 

Sterling  Mixed  Feed 

6824 

3.0 

10.0 

16.0 

International  Milling  Company, 

New  Prague,  Minn. 

De-Pend-On  Rye  Middlings  with  Ground 

9420 

2.5 

15.0 

10.0 

Screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Interstate  Feed  Association,  Detroit,  Mich. 

Interstate  Standard  Middlings  and  Screenings 

8183 

5.0 

14.0 

6.0 

Interstate  Wheat  Bran  and  Screenings 

8342 

4.0 

14.0 

11.0 

Iroquois  Roller  Mills,  Rensselaer,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  _ 

6139 

3.0 

13.0 

11.0 

Wheat  Middlings  _ 

6140 

2.5 

12.0 

7.0 

Buckwheat  Mixed  Feed  

6299 

2.0 

10.0 

25.0 

Buckwheat  Hulls 

7115 

1.5 

6.8 

33.0 

Jackson  & Smith,  Roanoke,  Ind. 

Corn  and  Oats  Chop 

4439 

3.0 

9.0 

6.0 

Jacobson,  Soren,  Young  America,  Ind. 

Jacobsons  Wheat  Middling  __  ...  _ 

385 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Jacobsons  Wheat  and  Corn  Bran  

2718 

3.8 

14.0 

11.0 

Jacobsons  Mixed  Feed  _ ___  

6359 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Jay  Grain  Company,  The,  Elwood,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed 

7021 

3.8 

9.0 

7.0 

Jay  Grain  Company,  The,  Mulberry,  Ind. 

Jay’s  Corn  Bran  . _ 

37 

5.0 

8.0 

13.0 

“Jay’s”  Wheat  Bran  & Shorts 

7716 

3.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Middlings  and  Ground  Screenings  not 

Exceeding  Mill  Run 

9383 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  Bran  and  Ground  Screenings 

9384 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 
Wheat  middlings,'  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings  not  to  exceed  mill 
run 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran 
Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 


Corn  bran 
Corn,  oats 
Corn  feed  meal 


Wheat  bran 
Wheat  bran,  shorts 
Wheat  shorts 


Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Wheat  bran,  with  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run, 
cob  meal  and  ground  corn 

Rye  middlings,  ground  rye  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 


Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 
Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

Wheat  bran 
Wheat  middlings 
Buckwheat  middlings,  buckwheat 
hulls 

Buckwheat  hulls 


Corn,  oats 


Wheat  middlings 
Wheat  bran,  corn  bran 
Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran, 
ground  wheat  screenings  not  exceed- 
ing mill  run 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 


Corn  bran 
Wheat  bran,  shorts 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 


10  Succeeded  by  Indiana  Elevator 


37 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

J Street  Milling  Company,  Laporte,  Ind. 

Corn  & Oats  Chop  Feed 

760 

3.9 

9.5 

6.0 

Com,  oats 

Wheat  Bran  

762 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

White  Middlings  

5064 

2.0 

12.0 

5.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Jennison  Company,  W.  J.,  Minneapolis,  Minn. 
Wheat  Flour  Middlings  with  Ground  Screen- 

:ngs  not  Exceeding  Mill  Run  _ 

Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings  not 

6038 

4.5 

17.0 

5.5 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Exceeding  Mill  Run 

6039 

4.0 

15.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

Johnston,  S.  E.,  Roll,  Ind. 

Corn  Feed  Meal  

8988 

3.0 

8.0 

11.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Johnston-Hicks  Mill  Company,  Altamount,  111. 

Johnston-Hicks  Wheat  Bran  & Screenings 

3178 

3.5 

13.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Johnston  & Sons,  C.  H.,  Pinola,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  ...  _ ..  ._  ..... 

7391 

3.0 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  Middlings  ._  

7392 

3.0 

13.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Chop  Feed  ...  . .... ._ 

7666 

3.9 

9.0 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

Mixed  Feed  

7757 

3.5 

14.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

Jones,  A.  A.,  Churubusco,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  ...  ...  

8969 

3.0 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  Middlings  ...  ...  

Jones,  G.  W.,  Upland,  Ind. 

8970 

3.0 

13.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Corn  & Oats  Chop 

3212 

3.5 

9.0 

9.0 

Corn,  oats 

Jones  Chop  Feed  

6012 

3.5 

9.0 

9.0 

Corn,  oats,  rye,  corn  feed  meal 

Jones  & Son,  C.  N.,  Wabash,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  ...  ...  

4534 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Bran  and  Shorts  _ 

7733 

3.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts 

Wheat  Middlings  

8383 

2.0 

12.5 

6.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Jordan,  Geo.  M.,  Vincennes,  Ind. 

Feed  Meal . 

7280 

2.5 

7.5 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

G.  M.  J.  Bran  & Screenings  . 

8310 

3.8 

14.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

G.  M.  J.  Middlings  & Screenings 

8311 

4.0 

15.0 

9.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  w’heat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

G.  M.  J.  Mixed  Feed  

Judson  Creamery  & Produce  Company, 

8703 

3.5 

15.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings, 
ground  wheat  screenings  not  exceed- 
ing mill  run,  salt 

North  Judson,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  & Screenings . 

8123 

3.5 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Judson  Wheat  Middlings  and  Screenings  

8496 

4.0 

14.5 

10.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Kamman,  Frank  W.,  Cross  Plains,  Ind. 

Shipstuff  or  Shorts  ..  _.  _ 

2359 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Bran  _.  ... 

2360 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Kansas  Milling  Company,  The,  Wichita,  Kans. 

Wheat  Shorts  ..  . _ ... 

4646 

4.0 

16.5 

5.2 

Wheat  shorts 

Kasch,  Chas.  C.,  Logansport,  Ind. 

Kasch’s  Chop  Feed 

5539 

3.5 

9.0 

6.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Katterjohn,  A.  F.,  Lynnville,  Ind. 

A.  F.  Katterjohn’s  Wheat  Bran 

487 

3.7 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Katterjohns  Shorts  

6937 

3.4 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Mixed  Feed  _. 

6938 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

Katterjohn,  Q.  F.,  Boonville,  Ind. 

Wheat  Shorts  _.  

1039 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Katterjohn’s  Mixed  Feed _ 

2243 

4.0 

13.5 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings, corn  bran 

38 

Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 


(3 

a 

a c 

d 

c4 

£ 1 
+»  . 0 

+5  ^ 

a> 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 

£££ 

® C fl 

s-i  rt: 
O C«H 

following  ingredients 

||g 

^ ft  u 

g J)® 

£ ft  0 

Katterjohn,  Q.  F.,  Boonville,  Ind. 

Elkhorn  Mixed  Feed 

Corn  Feed  Meal —l. 

Kaw  Milling  Company,  The,  Topeka,  Kansas 

Wheat  Shorts  . 

Mill  Run  and  Screenings 


Wheat  Bran  and  Screenings 

“Kaw  Kaw”  White  Middlings 

Kaw  Kaw  Shorts  and  Ground  Screenings  Not 
to  Exceed  5% — 

Kaw  Kaw  Bran  & Scourings 

Kaw  Kaw  Pure  Middlings 

Keene,  A.  C.,  Elkhart,  Ind. 

Keene’s  Chop  Feed  

Wheat  Bran  & Ground  Screenings 

Wheat  Middlings  & Ground  Screenings 

Kehlor  Flour  Mills  Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Neptune  White  Middlings 

Palace  Brim  — 

Rex  Middlings  and  Ground  Screenings 

Kehlor’s  Millfeed  

Keilman  Company,  The  L.,  Dyer,  Ind. 

Corn  & Oats  Chop 

Kemper  Mill  & Elevator  Company, 

Kansas  City,  Mo. 

Crown  Shorts  

Diamond  Bran  

Crescent  Middlings  with  Ground  Screenings.— 

Anchor  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings 

Anchor  Mixed  Feed  with  Screenings  Not 

Exceeding  Mill  Run 

Crescent  Mixed  Feed  and  Screenings  Not 

Exceeding  Mill  Run  

Carnation  Gray  Middlings  and  Screenings 
Not  Exceeding  Mill  Run 

Kennedy  Bros.,  Crawfordsville,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

Kennedy  Milling  Company,  The  Geo.  W., 
Shelbyville,  Ind. 

Middlings  

Mixed  Feed  

Corn  Bran  

Kennedy’s  Winter  Wheat  Bran  

Kennedy  Milling  Company,  M.  W.,17 
La  Fontaine,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

Kent  Milling  Company,  Kent,  Ind. 

Kent  Mixed  Feed , 

Corn  Feed  Meal  


3310 

3.5 

13.5 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  ground  wheat 
screenings,  corn  bran 

6862 

2.5 

7.5 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

3826 

4.0 

13.6 

6.0 

Wheat  shorts 

6128 

4.0 

17.0 

9.6 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  middlings,  low 
grade  flour,  ground  wheat  screen- 

7935 

4.0 

16.0 

9.6 

ings 

Wheat  bran,  not  to  exceed  8% 
ground  wheat  screenings 

8083 

3.0 

14.5 

3.5 

Wheat  middlings 

8304 

4.0 

17.0 

5.5 

Wheat  shorts,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings not  to  exceed  5% 

8305 

3.5 

15.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  scourings 
not  to  exceed  5% 

8306 

3.0 

15.0 

3.5 

Wheat  middlings 

3281 

3.5 

9.0 

8.0 

Com,  oats 

7361 

3.5 

13.5 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

7362 

3.5 

13.5 

9.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

4191 

4.0 

17.0 

4.0 

Wheat  middlings 

5808 

4.0 

14.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

6682 

4.0 

16.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

7508 

4.0 

15.0 

8.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings  not  exceeding  mill 
run 

2493 

3.9 

9.5 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

2065 

4.7 

16.0 

5.7 

Wheat  shorts 

2076 

4.0 

14.5 

9.5 

Wheat  bran 

6028 

4.2 

16.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

6030 

4.0 

14.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

7248 

4.0 

16.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  ground  wheat 

7324 

4.0 

16.0 

8.0 

screenings 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

7325 

4.3 

16.0  ■ 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

5211 

3.0 

8.5 

9.0 

Com,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

2110 

3.5 

13.5 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings 

2477 

3.5 

13.5 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  whole  wheat  screen- 
ings, corn  bran 

Corn  bran 

7791 

5.0 

8.0 

13.0 

8201 

3.5 

16.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

. 6067 

3.0 

8.0 

6.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

3364 

3.2 

13.5 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  whole  wheat  screenings 
Corn  feed  meal 

_ 6914 

2.5 

7.5 

5.0 

17  Succeeded  by  Hares  Feed  Mill 


39 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Kent  Milling  Company,  Kent,  Ii*l. 

Corn  Bran  __ 

6915 

4.0 

7.0 

10.0 

Corn  bran 

Wheat  Middlings  

7649 

3.8 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Keplinger,  Chas.,  Zanesville,  Ind.18 

Chop  Feed  - 

844 

4.0 

10.0 

5.0 

Corn,  oats 

Keplinger’s  Chop  . 

3485 

3.5 

9.5 

7.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran 

Mixed  Bran _ 

3486 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Kern  & Sons,  John  B.  A.,  Milwaukee,  Wis. 

Eagle  Rye  Middlings  with  Ground  Screenings 

Not  Exceeding  Mill  Run  _ ___ 

7420 

3.0 

15.0 

7.0 

Rye  middlings,  ground  rye  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

Kidder  Flour  Mills,  R.  E.,  Kansas  City,  Mo. 

Wheat  Bran  _ _ . . 

6132 

3.5 

14.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  Shorts  _ _ 

6133 

4.0 

15.0 

6.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Killian  Elevator,  The,  Newberry,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  

1196 

3.5 

8.5 

8.0 

Corn,  wheat,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings, corn  bran 

Corn  Feed  Meal _ ... 

8139 

2.5 

7.5 

6.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Kingman  Grain  & Milling  Company, 

Kingman,  Ind. 

Millfeed  ------  __  ___  

3156 

3.0 

14.0 

10.0 

WTheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran,  mill 
sweepings 

Corn  Feed  Meal 

5607 

2.5 

7.5 

7.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Kirlin  & Hammond,  Ashley,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  __  

9400 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Klemm,  Geo.  J.,  Milton,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  _ 

3465 

3.5 

13.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings, corn  bran 

Wheat  Middlings  . _ 

4738 

2.0 

10.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

“A”  Mixed  Feed  _ 

4756 

3.0 

12.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

Klondike  Milling  Company,  Danville,  Ind. 

The  Mill  Run  Mixed  Feed  _ _____ 

2654 

3.5 

13.0 

13.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

Klondike  Chop  Feed  

4430 

3.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Corn  Bran  __  

9016 

2.5 

6.0 

10.0 

Corn  bran 

Koenemann,  Ed.  F.,  Hoagland,  Ind. 

Corn  & Oats  Chop  

1682 

3.9 

9.5 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

Kollar  Flour  & Feed  Store,  South  Bend,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed _ 

3374 

3.5 

9.0 

8.0 

Corn,  oats 

Krackenberger,  Jake,  West  Terre  Haute,  Ind. 

Corn  Bran  

814 

5.8 

9.0 

12.7 

Corn  bran 

Krause  Milling  Company,  Chas.  A., 

Milwaukee,  Wis. 

Badger  Fancy  Mixed  Feed  - _ 

4341 

3.0 

11.0 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  reddog  flour 

Badger  Wheat  Middlings  and  Maizo  (Corn) 

Red  Dog  Flour . . 

4362 

3.0 

11.0 

9.0 

Wheat  middlings,  corn  r,e<ldog  flour 

Badger  Cream  Flakes 

4083 

3.0 

8.5 

9.0 

Corn  bran 

Badger  Maizo  Corn  Reddog  Flour 

7671 

7.5 

11.0 

2.0 

Low  grade  corn  flour  containing  the 
finer  particles  of  corn  bran 

Kuhn,  R.  A.,  Argos,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  _ 

2171 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Whe'at  bran 

Wheat  Middlings 

4.0 

14.0  1 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

18  Succeeded  by  Zanesville  Roller  Mills 


40 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


— 

Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Kuhn  & Company,  Paul,  Terre  Haute,  Ind. 

3250 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

3273 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Kuhn  & Son,  John  H.,  Michigan  City,  Ind. 

5331 

3.5 

8.8 

10.0 

Com,  oats 

0053 

3.0 

13.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 

9054 

3.0 

13.0 

11.0 

screenings 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Lafayette  Milling  Company,  The, 

Lafayette,  Ind. 

117 

4.0 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran 

Wheat  middlings 

3831 

2.8  • 

14.0 

7.0 

6116 

2.5 

7.5 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

LaGrange  Mills,  Red  Wing,  Minn. 

Fine  Middlings  with  Ground  Screenings  not 

8604 

5.0 

15.5 

9.5 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 

8787 

4.0 

13.5 

13.7 

screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 
Wheat  bran 

LaGro  Milling  Company,  LaGro,  Ind. 

3606 

3.0 

13.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 

Lake  Milling  Company,  Lake,  Ind. 

Corn  Peed  Meal  - 

8657 

4.0 

9.0 

15.0 

wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

Corn  bran,  com  grits,  corn  germ 

Mixed  Peed  

8658 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

LaPorte  Milling  Company,  LaPorte,  Ind. 

Ryp  Pppd  __  - 

4117 

2.5 

14.0 

5.0 

Rye  bran,  middlings 

Wheat  Bmp  __  _____  __  _ 

5995 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  Middlings  

5996 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Larabee  Plour  Mills  Corporation, 

Hutchinson,  Kansas 

Wheat  Bran  with  Mill  Run  Screenings  Not 
to  Exceed  8%  

8467 

3.2 

15.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  mill  run  ground  wheat 

Standard  Whoat  Sho^tP  - 

8468 

4.2 

17.0 

6.2 

screenings  not  to  exceed  8% 

Wheat  shorts 

Lash  Flour  Mills,  Fred  B.,  Farmersburg,  Ind. 
Lash’s  Shorts  

997 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Corn  Feed  Meal  

7783 

2.5 

7.5 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Fine  Mi\pd  Feed  - 

8543 

3.0 

12.0 

15.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 

Coarse  Mixed  Feed  

.8544 

3.0 

11.0 

15.0 

screenings,  oat  hulls 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  ground 

Lash’s  Mixed  Feed  

9059 

3.0 

11.0 

15.0 

wheat  screenings,  oat  hulls 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 

Laubscher,  Wm.  F.,  Evansville,  Ind. 

Ship  Stuff  

2649 

2.0 

8.0 

10.0 

wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

Bran  - 

26150 

2.0 

8.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Mixed  Feed  _ — 

7442 

3.0 

8.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

Lawrenceburg  Roller  Mills  Company, 
Lawrenceburg,  Ind. 

“Snowflake”  Middlings 

11 

5.1 

16.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Snowflake  Bran  - 

3936 

3.8 

14.2 

9.5 

Wheat  bran 

Golden  Bull  Bran — 

7110 

2.0 

15.5 

11.5 

Wheat  bran 

Golden  Bull  Middlings  - 

7111 

3.0 

17.5 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings 

“Golden  Bull”  Mixed  Feed 

8517 

2.5 

16.0 

10.2 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

“Snowflake”  Mixed  Feed  

. 8518 

4.3 

15.2 

8.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

Snowflake  Rye  Middlings  and  Screenings 

Snowflake  Barley  Mixed  Feed  and  Screenings. 

Snowflake  Corn  Feed  Meal  

. 9248 

. 9249 

. 9265 

3.0 

1.0 

6.5 

14.0 

6.0 

9.5 

6.0 

25.0 

4.7 

Rye  middlings,  ground  rye  screen- 
ings not  exceeding  mill  run 

Barley  hulls,  barley  bran,  barley 
middlings,  whole  barley  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

Corn  bran,  corn  germ,  corn  feed 

meal 

4i 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  o;i  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guara: 

nteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Leavel,  I.  A.,  Bainbridge,  Ind.19 

Wheat  Middlings  

7501 

4.0 

14.5 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings 

I.  A.  Leavel  Mixed  Feed 

7502 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

Lee  & Company,  James  M.,  New  Albany,  Ind. 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Success  Chop  Feed  

5421 

2.7 

8.5 

8.0 

Lee-Warren  Milling  Company,  Salina,  Kansas 

Wheat  Shorts 

7480 

3.5 

16.0 

5.5 

Wheat  shorts 

Wheat  Bran  & Screenings  _ 

7481 

3.5 

14.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  whole  wheat  screenings 
not  to  exceed  mill  run 

Leesburg  Grain  & Milling  Company,  The, 
Leesburg,  Ind. 

Chop  _ 

304 

3.9 

9.5 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

Wheat  Bran  -- 

306 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Middlings - 

306 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Corn  Bran . _ 

9215 

2.5 

7.0 

10.0 

Corn  bran 

Leib,  date,  Elkhart,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed __ 

4764 

2.5 

9.0 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

Lemon  Milling  Company,  The,  Bedford,  Ind. 

Corn  & Oats  Chop . 

3246 

4.0 

8.5 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

Mixed  Mill  Feed 

3915 

3.5 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  shorts,  corn 
bran,  ground  wheat  screenings,  mill 
sweepings 

Corn  Feed  Meal _ 

9243 

4.0 

9.0 

10.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Levis  Milling  Company,  Lewis,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  . . ___ 

6005 

3.5 

14.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  Shorts  & Low  Grade  Flour  

6003 

2.5 

13.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts,  low  grade  flour 

Lewisport  Mill  Company,  Lewisport,  Ky. 

“Farmers  Choice”  . _ __  __ 

2377 

4.2 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings,  corn  bran 

“Mixed  Feed” 

2378 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

Liebhardt  & Lovett,  Middletown,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed 

8041 

3.0 

8.5 

10.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Lindauer,  Ferd.,  Fulda,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  . 

1038 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Mixed  Feed  

7748 

3.0 

13.0 

6.0 

Wheat  shorts,  wheat  scourings, 
chaff 

Lind3borg  Milling  & Elevator  Company, 
Lindsborg,  Kansas 

Pure  Wheat  Bran 

6073 

3.5 

14.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  Shorts  & Screenings 

6074 

3.5 

16.0 

7.0 

Wheat  shorts,  not  exceeding  8% 
ground  wheat  screenings 

Lingeman,  Adams  & Company, 

Brownsburg,  Ind. 

Bran  . _ 

3320 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Corn  Feed  Meal  * __ 

4426 

3.0 

8.5 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Mixed  Feed  

6822 

2.4 

7.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  aspirator 
dust  from  ground  corn,  oats  and 

Wheat  Middlings  

7603 

2.5 

14.0 

6.0 

rye 

Wheat  middlings 

Chop  Feed 

7938 

3.0 

9.0 

10.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

L A Co  Mixed  Feed 

9214 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings 

Linkhart  & Son,  J.  W.,  North  Vernon,  Ind. 

Linkhart’s  Mixed  Feed  . 

7410 

3.5 

9.5 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  corn  bran,  corn 
feed  meal,  whole  wheat  screenings 

Linton  Mill  Company,  The,  Linton,  Ind. 

Corn  & Oat  Chop 

503 

3.9 

9.5 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

Wheat  Shorts  __  __ 

507 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Wheat  Bran  

508 

3.8 

14  0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

10  Succeeded  by  Bainbridge  Mill  & Elevator  Co. 


42 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale  May  J\,  1918  (continued) 


LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

Linton  Mill  Company,  The,  Linton,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  - _ 

1792 

4.0 

13.0 

11.0 

A.  Mixed  Feed ___ 

4047 

3.5 

13.0 

12.0 

Listman  Mill  Company,  LaCrosse,  Wis. 

Elmco  Standard  Middlings  _ _ ___  

8367 

5.6 

18.1 

6.4 

Elmco  Bran  

3368 

4.1 

16.6 

11.3 

Little  Crow  Milling  Company,  Warsaw,  Ind. 
Little  Crow  Wheat  Bran  _____  

360 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  Middlings  & Screenings 

7284 

3.0 

13.0 

9.0 

Livonia  Flouring  Mills,  Livonia,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  

6920 

3.0 

13.0 

7.0 

Mixed  Bran  & Screenings 

6921 

3.0 

13.0 

11.0 

Logan,  George,  Shirley,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  

6894 

3.0 

13.0 

10.0 

Shorts 

7032 

3.0 

13.0 

8.0 

Lone  Star  Feed  Mill,  Washington,  Ind.20 

Lone  Star  Chop  Feed 

5929 

3.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Long,  John  C.,  Chesterton,  Ind.,  R.  R.  2 21 

Wheat  Middlings  

1495 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  Bran  _ 

1496 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Longfellow  Bros.,  Kokomo,  R.  R.  8,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  __  

7293 

3.0 

8.5 

9.0 

Loogootee  Milling  Company,  Loogootee,  Ind. 

Bran  __  

1837 

3.2 

14.0 

10.0 

Shorts  _ 

1838 

3.8 

14.0 

8.0 

A.  Dairy  Mixed  Feed 

4102 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Mixed  Feed  

4103 

3.0 

14.0 

11.0 

Corn  Feed  Meal 

6438 

2.5 

8.0 

5.0 

Special  Mixed  Feed  

9310 

3.0 

10.0 

19.0 

Loughry  Bros.  Milling  & Grain  Company, 
Monticello,  Ind. 

Loughry’s  Corn  and  Oats  Chop 

41 

3.7 

9.5 

6.0 

Loughry’s  Mixed  Feed  

1946 

3.7 

14.0 

10.0 

Loughry’s  Corn  Bran  ___  _ 

2549 

4.0 

7.0 

11.0 

Loughry’s  Buckwheat  Mixed  Feed 

4614 

2.5 

10.0 

33.0 

Loughry’s  Wheat  Middlings  & Screenings 

6170 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Loughry’s  Feed  

6171 

4.0 

16.5 

9.0 

Loughry’s  Feed  Meal 

7713 

2,5 

7.0 

5.0 

Loughry’s  Reddog  Flour  _ 

7731 

3.5 

16.0 

3.0 

Loughry’s  Rye  Middlings 

9097 

3,0 

14.0 

6.0 

Louisiana  State  Rice  Milling  Company, 

New  Orleans,  La. 

Rice  Polish  

5275 

6.5 

9.0 

5.0 

Rice  Bran _ _ s 

5298 

8.5 

11.5 

12.0 

Pearling  Cone  Meal  __  _• 

8525 

13.2 

13.2 

9.0 

Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Wheat  bran,  shorts,  corn  bran 
Wheat  bran,  shorts,  corn  bran, 
ground  wheat  screenings 


Wheat  middlings 
Wheat  bran 


Wheat  bran 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 


Wheat  middlings 
Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  ground 
wheat  screenings 


Wheat  bran,  shorts,  ground  wheat 
screenings 
Wheat  shorts 


Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 


Wheat  middlings 
Wheat  bran 


Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 


Wheat  bran 
Wheat  shorts 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
Corn  feed  meal 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  oat  hulls, 
ground  wheat  screenings 


Corn,  oats 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
“not  exceeding  mill  run” 

Corn  bran 

Buckwheat  middlings,  hulls 
Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 
Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings  not  exceeding  mill 
run 

Corn  feed  meal 

Low  grade  wheat  flour  containing 
the  finer  particles  of  wheat  bran 
Rye  middlings 


Rice  polish 
Rice  bran 

A manufactured  mixture  of  rice  bran 
and  rice  polish 


20  Succeeded  by  G.  E.  Reeve  & Son 

21  Succeeded  by  C.  J.  Rolfe 


43 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 
per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent, 
crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Louisville  Milling  Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 
Wheat  Bran,  with  Ground  Screenings  not 

Exceeding  Mill  Run 

Wheat  Shorts  with  Ground  Screenings  not 

6175 

4.0 

14.5 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

Exceeding  Mill  Run _ 

Wheat  Mixed  Feed,  with  Ground  Screenings 

6176 

4.0 

15.0 

7.0 

Wheat  shorts,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings not  exceeding  mill  dun 

not  Exceeding  Mill  Run  

6333 

4.0 

14.5 

8.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Dandy  Red  Dog  Middlings _ 

Barley  Mixed  Feed  and  Ground  Barley 

6703 

4.0 

16.0 

5.0 

Low  grade  wheat  flour  containing 
the  finer  particles  of  wheat  bran 

Screenings  

9174 

1.0 

6.0 

25.0 

Barley  hulls,  barley  middlings,  bar- 
ley bran,  ground  barley  screenings 

Lynn  City  Mills,  Lynn,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  _ 

8887 

3.5 

13.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  Bran  __  

Lyon  & Greenleaf  Company,  Ligonier,  Ind. 

8888 

3.5 

13.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  Middlings  and  Screenings - 

8003 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Mixed  Feed  — _ - 

8217 

3.8 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Lyons  Milling  Company,  The,  Lyons,  Kansas 

Wheat  Wrhite  Shorts  ___  __  

6612 

4.0 

15.0 

3.5 

Wheat  shorts 

Wheat  Bran  & Scourings  __  __ 

6613 

3.5 

15.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  scourings 

Maegerlein,  E.  S.,  Patricksburg,  Ind. 

Shorts  . 

8100 

3.0 

13.0 

9.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Bran  _ _ . __________  

8103 

3.0 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Mixed  Feed  _ _ 

8698 

3.0 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

Maegerlein  Roller  Mills,  Arthur,  Clay  City,  Ind. 

Bran  ____  

3807 

3.0 

13.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran 

Shorts  _ __  _ _ 

3808 

3.5 

13.0 

8.5 

Wheat  shorts 

Mixed  Feed  

6599 

2.8 

12.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

Maginot  Bros.,  Hammond,  Ind. 

“Magnet”  Corn  & Oats  Chop  - 

3745 

3.5 

9.0 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

Hammond  Chop  _ 

4680 

3.0 

9.0 

9.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Wheat  Bran  and  Screenings  _ __ 

4681 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Wheat  Middlings  & Screenings  __  

5883 

4.5 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Mahalasville  Milling  Company, 

Mahalasville,  Ind. 

Wheat  Shorts  

8211 

2.0 

10.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Mixed  Bran  _ __  

8212' 

3.0 

13.0 

11.5 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran 

Majot  & Morgan,  Michigan  City,  R.  R.  1,  Ind. 

Mill  Feed  

8037 

3.0 

13.0 

12.0 

Wheat,  rye,  rye  bran,  rye  middlings, 
corn  feed  meal 

Mallinson,  Charles  L.,  Evansville,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  _ _ _ _ _____  

Wheat  Shorts  & Ground  Screenings  not 

7363 

3.5 

13.5 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

Exceeding  Mill  Run 

7334 

4.0 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  shorts,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings not  exceeding  mill  run 

Malsbary  & Company,  Darlington,  Ind. 

Malsbary’s  Chop  Feed  _ _ __  

3302 

3.0 

9.0 

6.0 

Wheat,  corn,  oats 

Malsbary  Corn  and  Oats 

3834 

3.5 

9.0 

7.0 

Corn,  oats 

Maney  Milling  Company,  Omaha,  Neb. 

Wheat  Shorts  _ _ 

2996 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Mixed  Feed  ___  ___ 

5580 

4.0 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

Marengo  Milling  Company,  Marengo,  Ind. 

“A”  Mixed  Feed _ _ 

7746 

3.5 

13.5 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

Marion  National  Mill  Company,  The, 

Marion,  Ohio 

Winter  WTheat  Middlings  

8966 

4.6 

16.2 

5.0 

Wheat  middlings 

44 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 


a 

a 

•fl 


02 

Ai  ft  O 


Sj  3 
2 £ 
ft  W 


and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Markland  Roller  Mills,  Markland,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  

Marshall  Milling  Company,  Marshall,  Ind. 

Shorts  

Mill  Feed  — 

Marshall  Milling  Company,  Marshall,  Minn. 
Wheat  Shorts,  With  Screenings  Not  Exceed- 
ing Mill  Run  

Wheat  Bran,  With  Screenings  Not  Exceeding 
Mill  Run  

Red  Dog  

White  Middlings  

Martin,  John  D.,  Lafayette,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  

Wheat  Bran  . 

Wheat  Middlings  & Ground  Screenings 

Corn  Feed  Meal 

Martin  & Martin,  New  Castle,  Ind. 

Martin  & Martin’s  Wheat  Bran  

Martin  & Martin’s  Wheat  Middlings  

Martin  & Martin’s  Mixed  Feed  

Dairy  Mixed  Feed  

Corn  Feed  Meal  

Martinsville  Milling  Company, 

Martinsville,  Ind. 

Corn  Feed  Meal  

A.  Mixed  Mill  Feed 

Maumee  Valley  Mills,  New  Haven,  Ind. 

Bran  — 

Mayflower  Mills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind. 

Mayflower  Mills  Chop  Feed 

Vollands  Chop  Feed  

Mayflower  Bran  and  Screenings 

Mayflower  Mills  Mixed  Feed  


Red  Dog  

Wheat  Middlings  with  Ground  Screenings 
Not  Exceeding  Mill  Run 

Mendenhall-Weaver  Company,  Sheridan,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  & Screenings 

Wheat  Shorts  

Merchants  Hay  & Grain  Company, 
Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Rye  Middlings  

Wheat  Middlings  

Wheat  Bran  

Corn  Feed  Meal  

Metamora  Roller  Mills,  Metamora,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  

Mexico  Roller  Mills,  Mexico,  Ina. 

Pure  Wheat  Bran 

Mill  Run  Feed  


1260 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

5157 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

5158 

3.0 

14.0 

10.0 

8626 

5.0 

15.5 

10.5 

8827 

4.0 

.14.5 

12.5 

8628 

5.0 

17.0 

5.0 

8629 

5.5 

17.5 

6.5 

4257 

4.0 

15.0 

8.0 

4258 

4.0 

14.0 

9.0 

6147 

4.0 

15.0 

7.0 

7001 

2.7 

7.0 

4.0 

3150 

3.2 

12.0 

10.0 

3794 

3.7 

14.0 

10.0 

4351 

3.5 

13.0 

8.0 

6958 

3.2 

12.0 

10.0 

7063 

2.7 

7.5 

8.0 

5977 

2.5 

7.5 

5.0 

6743 

4.0 

15.0 

10.0 

6896 

3.5 

14.0 

7.0 

449 

3.9 

9.5 

6.0 

4566 

3.5 

9.0 

10.0 

6715 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

7175 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

i 7444 

2.0 

10.0 

5.0 

8170 

4.0 

14.0 

9.0 

8639 

2.5 

14.0 

10.0 

8640 

3.5 

14.0 

6.0 

4385 

2.9 

15.0 

3.0 

4386 

4.0 

15.5 

6.0 

4387 

4.0 

15.4 

10.0 

8535 

2.4 

8.0 

3.0 

8523 

4.0 

14.5 

10.0 

4009 

3.5 

14.0 

11.0 

4011 

3.8 

14.0 

1 9.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  whole  wheat 
screenings 

Wheat  shorts 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  shorts,  corn 
bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 


Wheat  shorts,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings not  exceeding  mill  run 
Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 
Low  grade  wheat  flour  containing 
the  finer  particles  of  wheat  bran 
Wheat  middlings 


Wheat  middlings 
Wheat  bran 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 
Corn  feed  meal 


Wheat  bran 
Wheat  middlings 
Wheat  bran,  middlings 
Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  com 
bran,  corn  feed  meal 
Corn  feed  meal 


Corn  feed  meal 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran, 
ground  wdieat  screenings  not  exceed- 
ing mill  run 
Wheat  bran 


Corn,  oats 
Corn,  oats 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 
Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings  not  exceeding  mill 
run 

Low  grade  wheat  flour  containing 
the  finer  particles  of  wheat  bran 
Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
Wheat  shorts 


Rye  middlings 
Wheat  middlings 
Wheat  bran 
Corn  feed  meal 


Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran, 
ground  wheat  screenings  not  exceed- 
ing mill  run 
Wheat  bran 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  middlings 


45 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Meyer  & Sons  Milling  Company,  John  F., 

St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Albatross  Bran  

8785 

3.9 

16.2 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  mill  run  screenings  not 
exceeding  8% 

Miesenhelder  Bros.,  Sullivan,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  

858 

5.0 

15.4 

5.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Miesenhelder’s  Mixed  Feed  

4152 

2.5 

10.5 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

Miesenhelder’s  Perfecto  Mixed  Peed  __  

Wheat  Bran  & Ground  Wheat  Screenings 

4586 

2.5 

8.0 

10.0 

Corn,  oats,  wheat  bran,  wheat  mid- 
dlings, corn  bran,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Not  Exceeding  Mill  Run  

8924 

3.5 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

Milan  Milling  Company,  Milan,  Ind. 

Shorts  

3314 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Wheat  Bran  __  . 

3315 

3.7 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Corn  Bran 

8973 

2.0 

5.0 

12.0 

Corn  bran 

Mixed  Peed  - - 

9216 

4.0 

15.0 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts 

Milford  Grain  & Milling  Company, 

Milford,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  ...  __  . 

8479 

3.0 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  Middlings  & Ground  Screenings 

8480 

3.5 

14.0 

9.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  to  exceed  mill  run 

Miller,  A.  J.,  Montpelier,  Ind. 

Mixed  Peed  _ 

6057 

3.0 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran, 
dust  collector  dust 

Miller,  Pred,  West  College  Corner,  Ind. 

Triona  Bran  with  Screenings  . . 

9026 

3.5 

13.0 

12.5 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

Triona  Middlings  with  Screenings 

9027 

5.0 

15.0 

6.5 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Triona  Mixed  Feed 

Miller  Flour  & Peed  Company,  The  Wesley, 

9028 

4.5 

14.0 

8.5 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings  not  exceeding  mill 
run 

South  Bend,  Ind. 

Mixed  Peed  

2847 

3.8 

14.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings, corn  bran 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Chop  Feed  

4111 

3.5 

9.0 

7.0 

Wheat  Middlings  & Screenings 

6483 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Milltown  Milling  Company,  Milltown,  Ind. 

“Mixed  Peed”  __  - 

Mishawaka  Peed  Store,  Mishawaka,  Ind. 

7742 

3.5 

13.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran,  corn 
feed  meal 

Mishawaka  Chop  Peed  - 

Mitchell,  J.  C.,  Chicago,  111. 

8695 

3.0 

9.5 

6.0 

Corn,  oats,  rye 

Poland  Middlings  

3318 

4.0 

18.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Model  Mill,  The,  Friendswood,  Ind. 

Wheat  Shorts  

3850 

2.0 

12.0 

7.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Mixed  Bran 

3861 

3.5 

13.0 

13.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran 

Modoc  Roller  Mills  & Elevator,  Modoc,  Ind. 

Mixed  Peed  __  . 

7253 

3.0 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Monarch  Milling  Company,  The, 

Hutchinson,  Kansas 

Wheat  Middlings  .. 

8741 

5.0 

18.0 

9.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Winter  Wheat  Bran  

8742 

3.0 

16.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran 

Monroe  Grain,  Hay  & Milling  Company, 

Monroe,  Ind. 

Corn  & Oats  Chop 

2188 

3.5 

0.0 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

Wheat  Middlings  

4789 

2.2 

13.0 

6.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  Bran  

4790 

3.0 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

46 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Montmorenci  Elevator  Company, 

Montmorenci,  Ind. 

Corn  Feed  Meal _ 

Moon,  Grant,  Denver,  Ind. 

8532 

2.0 

8.5 

7.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Corn  & Oats  Chop __  

2750 

3.5 

9.0 

9.0 

Corn,  oats 

Moore  Milling  Company,  R.  P.,  Princeton,  Ind. 

Corn  Bran  ..  

999- 

5.0 

8.0 

13.0 

Corn  bran 

Morgan,  Frank,  Ilene,  Ind. 

Crax.  Corn  & Oats  

7084 

3.5 

9.0 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

Morgan,  Frank,  Plainville,  Ind. 

Mill  Feed 

9324 

3.5 

14.0 

7.5 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

Morocco  Feed  & Grist  Mill,  Morocco,  Ind. 

Chop  __  - _ 

5928 

3.2 

9.2 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

Morristown  Milling  Company,  Morristown,  Ind. 

Corn  Bran  _ - 

2614 

5.0 

9.0 

13.0 

Corn  bran 

Moscow  Roller  Mills,  Moscow,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  

1633 

3.8 

14.2 

3.8 

Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  Bran  - 

Moutoux,  P.  & H.,  Evansville,  Ind. 

1634 

3.7 

14  1 

7.0 

Wheat  bran 

“X  L”  Dry  Mixed  Feed 

Mueller,  E.  P.,  Chicago,  111. 

9238 

2.5 

9.0 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  wheat  bran,  middlings, 
ground  wheat  screenings,  corn  feed 
meal 

Rye  Middlings  and  Screenings 

8731 

3.5 

16.1 

9.0 

Rye  middlings,  ground  rye  screenings 

Wheat  bran  with  Ground  Screenings 

8842 

4.0 

14.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

Mulberry  Coal  & Feed  Company, 

Mulberry,  Ind. 

Mulberry  Corn  Feed  Meal 

5986 

2.7 

7.5 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Muller  Bros.  Milling  Company,  Ferdinand,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed 

6709 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  ground  wheat 
screenings,  corn  bran 

Wheat  Bran,  Corn  Bran  & Screenings 

6710 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings, corn  bran 

Wheat  Shorts  and  Screenings 

8448 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings 

Myers  & Son,  Joseph  H.,  Chili,  Ind.22 

Germ  Middlings  - _ - 

3325 

3.0 

15.0 

9.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Bran  _ - — - 

3326 

3.0 

16.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Chop  Feed  

4543 

3.2 

9.0 

10.0 

Wheat,  corn,  oats,  rye 

White  Middlings  

7581 

2.9 

13.9 

11.5 

Wheat  middlings 

Mystic  Milling  Company,  Sioux  City,  Iowa 

“Mystic  Bran”  

6044 

4.5 

14.0 

15.0 

Wheat  bran 

McCorkle  & Riley,  Thorntown,  Ind. 

(A)  Wonder 

5887 

3.5 

9.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

Ground  Corn  and  Oats 

5888 

3.5 

9.0 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

McCormick  & Son,  Chas.  W.,  Logansport,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  & Screenings  __ 

7538 

3.5 

13.5 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Wheat  Middlings  & Screenings  

7539 

4.0 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

McCoy,  F.  C.,  Orleans,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  

3.5 

13.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  screenings 

22  Succeeded  by  J.  L.  & J.  M.  Myers 


47 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

a 

S c 

ti 

c 3 

c3 

2 '5 

LABEL 

fljf 

® ..Q 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 

£££ 

03  fl  ft 

O 

following  ingredients 

'5 

£ 

o 

•2  8® 
Jj  , T5 

H Pi  U 

^8® 
4-5  . 

£ ® 2 
^ ft  O 

5*3 
1 0.1 

McCoy  Bros.,  Liberty,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  

162 

3.8 

15.1 

5.0 

Wheat  Bran 

1428 

3.5 

14.2 

11.5 

Mixed  Feed  

2436 

3.5 

15.0 

8.0 

McCoy  & Company,  U.  G.,  Vincennes,  Ind. 

Corn  & Oats  Chop _ _ 

8168 

3.9 

9.0 

6.0 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  and  Screenings  _ 

5504 

4.0 

14.0 

11.0 

McCoys  Choice  Wheat  Middlings  with  Screen- 

ings  Not  Exceeding  Mill  Run  ______ 

5514 

3.0 

16.0 

8.0 

Rye  Middlings  _ _ . 

5879 

3.0 

15.0 

6.0 

Rye  Middlings  and  Ground  Rye  Screenings 

9256 

3.0 

15.0 

6.0 

McHenry  Milling  Company,  L.  E., 

Lexington,  Ind. 

McHenry’s  Mixed  Feed  __  _ 

8499 

3.4 

14.3 

4.9 

McKenzie  Cereal  Food  & Milling  Company, 
Quincy,  Mich. 

McKenzies  Pure  Wheat  Middlings 

2822 

3.8 

13.0 

9.0 

McKenzies  Pure  Wheat  Bran 

2823 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

McMahan  Brothers,  Valparaiso,  Ind. 

Perfection  Chop  Feed 

4901 

3.0 

9.0 

10.0 

McMillen  & Son,  J.  W.,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.23 

McMillen’s  Corn  and  Oats  Chop  __  _ 

8459 

3.9 

9.5 

6.0 

Naber  & Company,  Chas.  F.,  Alexandria,  Ind. 

Mixed  Bran  _ _ _ _ _ 

6574 

3.0 

13.0 

11.0 

Nabers  Bran  _ _ 

7197 

3.3 

14.0 

11.0 

Mixed  Feed  

9311 

3.0 

13.0 

10.0 

Nading  Grain  Company,  Wm.,  Greensburg,  Ind. 

Nading’s  Chop  Feed _ 

7278 

3.9 

9.5 

6.0 

Nading’s  Ground  Feed  _ __  

7710 

3.3 

9.5 

11.0 

Corn  Feed  Meal  

8863 

2.5 

7.5 

5.0 

Napoleon  Flour  Mills,  Napoleon,  Ind. 

Napoleon  Wheat  Bran,  Corn  Bran  and 

Screenings  __  

4042 

3.7 

14.1 

12.0 

Napoleon  Middlings  

4043 

3.8 

14.2 

8.0 

National  Feed  Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Wheat  Bran  and  Screenings 

4659 

5216 

3.0 

4.0 

14.0 

14.0 

10.0 

8.0 

Mixed  Feed  or  Mill  Run  with  Screenings 

Wheat  Middlings  & Ground  Screenings _ 

7349 

4.0 

16.0 

8.0 

Mixed  Feed  __  __  _ 

8547 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Corn  Feed  Meal  

8637 

7.0 

10.0 

10.0 

National  Red  Dog  __ 

9022 

4.0 

16.0 

5.0 

National  Mills,  Angola,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  ____  

7153 

3.5 

13.5 

11.0 

Wheat  Middlings  

7154 

3.0 

13.0 

7.0 

Wheat  Bran  with  Screenings  _ 

7622 

3.0 

13.5 

11.0 

Wheat  Middlings  with  Screenings 

7623 

3.0 

13.0 

10.0 

23  Succeeded  by  The  McMillen  Company 


Wheat  middlings 
Wheat  bran 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran 


Corn,  oats 


Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 
Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 
Rye  middlings 

Rye  middlings,  ground  rye  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 


Wheat  bran,  shorts,  middlings, 
ground  wheat  screenings  not  exceed- 
ing mill  run 

Wheat  middlings 
Wheat  bran 


Corn,  oats 


Corn,  oats 


Wheat  bran,  corn  bran 
Wheat  bran 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran, 
ground  wheat  screenings 

Corn, oats 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Corn  feed  meal 


Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  whole  tvheat 
screenings 
Wheat  middlings 


Wheat  bran,  whole  wheat  screenings 
Wheat  bran,  shorts,  whole  wheat 
screenings 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 
Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  corn 
bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
Corn  bran,  corn  germ,  com  grits  and 
a part  of  the  starchy  portion  of  the 
corn  kernel 

Low  grade  wheat  flour  containing 
the  finer  particles  of  wheat  bran 

Wheat  bran 
Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  to  exceed  mill  run 
Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  to  exceed  mill  run 


4s 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 

Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 


Nesbit,  I.  A.,  Sullivan,  Ind. 
Nesbit’s  Wheat  Middlings 
Nesbit’s  Mixed  Feed 


Nesbit  & Company,  I.  A.,  Sullivan,  Ind. 

Shipstuff  

Wheat  Bran  


New  Albany  Milling  Company,  The, 

New  Albany,  Ind. 

Barley  Mixed  Feed  and  Ground  Barley 
Screenings  


New  Carlisle  Milling  Company, 
New  Carlisle,  Ind. 

Corn  & Oats  Chop 

Wheat  Bran  

Wheat  Middlings  


New  Castle  Elevator  Company, 
New  Castle,  Ind. 

Corn  & Oat  Chop 


New  Era  Milling  Company,  The, 
Arkansas  City,  Kansas 
Mill  Run  Bran  & Wheat  Screenings 
Wheat  Bran  & Wheat  Screenings 

Standard  Wheat  Shorts 

White  Shorts  


New  Middletown  Milling  Company, 
New  Middletown,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  

Wheat  Bran  


New  Milling  Company,  The,  Greenfield,  Ind. 

Corn  & Oats  Chop 

Mixed  Feed  


Corn  Feed  Meal 
Wheat  Middlings 


New  Prague  Flouring  Mill  Company, 

New  Prague,  Minn. 

Seal  of  Minnesota  Wheat  Flour  Middlings— 
Seal  of  Minnesota  Wheat  Bran,  with  Ground 
Screenings  Not  exceeding  Mill  Run 


Seal  of  Minnesota  Wheat  Standard  Middlings 

Newton  Stewart  Milling  Company, 

Newton  Stewart,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  — 


Nichols  & Company,  C.  E.,  Lowell,  Ind. 

Corn  & Oats  Chop 

Corn  Bran 

Buckwheat  Mixed  Feed 

Standard  Middlings  with  Ground  Screenings 

Not  Exceeding  Mill  Run 

Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings  not 
Exceeding  Mill  Run 


Red  Dog  Flour 


Nieman,  C.,  Sunman,  Ind. 

Nieman’s  Middlings 

Nieman’s  Mixed  Feed  ... 


Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  cf  the 
following  ingredients 

5017 

3.3 

14.0 

6.0 

Wheat  middlings 

5018 

3.2 

13.5 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  corn 
bran 

860 

5.0 

15.4 

5.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

861 

4.0 

15.4 

9.0 

Wheat  bran 

9182 

1.0 

6.0 

25.0 

Barley  hulls,  barley  bran,  barley 
middlings,  ground  barley  screenings 

1315 

3.9 

9.0 

9.0 

Corn,  oats 

1316 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

1317 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

702 

3.2 

9.0 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

6850 

3.7 

17.0 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

. 6859 

3.5 

16.0 

10.5 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

. 6860 

4.0 

17.5 

6.0 

Wheat  shorts 

7476 

3.7 

17.6 

3.5 

Wheat  shorts 

. 33:3 

2.5 

12.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

. 3304 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

. 1861 

3.9 

9.5 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

. 2616 

3.8 

14.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

. 3830 

2.7 

7.5 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

- 7721 

2.4 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

- 7906 

3.5 

15.5 

4.5 

Wheat  middlings 

- 7907 

3.0 

13.3 

11.2 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

7908 

5.2 

15.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

. 4725 

3.0 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

. 1528 

3.5 

9.0 

9.0 

Corn,  oats 

. 5399 

5.0 

9.0 

13.5 

Corn  bran 

- 6377 

3.0 

12.0 

33.0 

Buckwheat  middlings,  buckwheat 
hulls 

- 7095 

4.5 

15.0 

11.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

. 7096 

4.0 

14.5 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

. 7097 

4.0 

16.5 

3.0 

Low  grade  wheat  flour  containing 
the  finer  particles  of  wheat  bran 

500 

4.0 

14.0 

5.0 

Wheat  middlings 

. 501 

3.7 

14.0 

9.7 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

49 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


j 

Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No, 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Niezer  & Company,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  & Screenings 

6268 

3.0 

13.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Mixed  Bran  and  Screenings 

6270 

3.0 

13.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

Niezer  & Company,  Monroeville,  Ind. 

Corn  & Oats  Chop 

1501 

3.5 

9.0 

9.0 

Corn,  oats 

Wheat  Bran  

1602 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  Middlings  ___  

1503 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Noblesville  Milling  Company,  Noblesville,  Ind. 

N.  M.  Co’s  Mixed  Feed  

5243 

4.0 

16.0 

8.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

N.  M.  Co’s  Wheat  Bran  & Screenings 

5252 

3.7 

14.5 

8.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

N.  M.  Co’s  Goodcatch  Feed  _ 

Noblesville  Milling  Co’s  Middlings  & Ground 

5351 

4.0 

15.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

Screenings  Not  Exceeding  Mill  Run 

Barley  Mixed  Feed  with  Ground  Barley 

7306 

4.0 

15.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Screenings  __  - 

9392 

1.7 

9.0 

20.4 

Barley  bran,  barley  middlings,  barley 
hulls,  ground  barley  screenings 

Nodine,  W.  J.,  Waterloo,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  - 

2773 

3.0 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  Middlings  — — - 

3151 

3.5 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Noftsger,  Benjamin,  Rochester,  Ind. 

Corn  and  Oats  Chop  . 

2051 

3.5 

9.0 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

Nordmeyer,  John  A.,  Morris,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  _ 

4080 

3.6 

14.6 

6.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Norris  & Kidwell,  Washington,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  __  

6279 

3.0 

13.5 

9.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  Bran  and  Middlings - 

6281 

4.0 

14.7 

8.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

Corn  Bran  

7911 

3.0 

6.0 

19.0 

Corn  bran 

Wheat  Middlings  ___  — 

8285 

3.5 

16.4 

5.0 

Wheat  middlings 

North  Grove  Grain  Company,  North  Grove,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed 

0808 

2.8 

8.7 

7.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

North  Judson  Milling  Company, 

North  Judson,  Ind. 

Rye  Mixed  Feed  ___  _ 

8127 

2.0 

12.0 

10.0 

Rye  bran,  rye  middlings 

Wheat  Middlings  __  __ 

9032 

2.0 

12.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  Mixed  Feed _ 

9033 

3.0 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings 

North  Madison  Coal  Company, 

North  Madison,  Ind. 

Corn  Bran  __  _ _ _ 

9178 

5.0 

9.0 

15.0 

Corn  bran 

Buckwheat  hulls 

9179 

1.1 

5.2 

46.2 

Buckwheat  hulls 

North  Manchester  Milling  Company, 

North  Manchester,  Ind. 

“North  Manchester  Milling  Companys  Mid- 

dlings” ..  _ _ _____  

855 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

“North  Manchester  Milling  Companys  Chop”. 

856 

3.9 

9.5 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

North  Manchester  Milling  Company’s  Bran.— 

3525 

2.5 

12.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Mixed  Feed  

4262 

3.0 

11.5 

12.5 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings, corn  bran 

North  Star  Feed  & Cereal  Company,  The, 
Minneapolis,  Minn. 

No.  1 Corn  & Oats  Feed _ 

2508 

3.1 

9.8 

5.9 

Corn,  oats 

Rye  Middlings  _ 

4353 

1.5 

14.5 

5.2 

Rye  middlings 

No.  2 Corn  and  Oats  Feed  

4884 

3.2 

9.5 

7.0 

Corn,  oats 

Corn  Feed  Meal  ___  _ _ 

7715 

5.7 

9.5 

6.5 

Com  feed  meal 

50 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

North  Western  Consolidated  Milling  Company, 

The,  Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Pure  Wheat  Bran 

2825 

4.0 

14.5 

11.0 

Wheat  bran 

XXX  Comet 

Wheat  Flour  Middlings  with  Ground  Screen- 

2828 

4.0 

16.5 

3.0 

Low  grade  wheat  flour  containing 
the  liner  particlesof  wheat  bran 

ings  Not  Exceeding  Mill  Run 

“Wheat  Standard  Middlings  with  Ground 

5498 

4.5 

15.5 

6.0 

Wheat  flour,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings  not  exceeding  mill 
run 

Screenings  Not  Exceeding  Mill  Run’’  _ 

Rye  Middlings  with  Ground  Screenings  Not 

6894 

4.5 

15.0 

11.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Exceeding  Mill  Run  

Barley  Mill  Feed  with  Ground  Screenings  Not 

9070 

3.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Rye  middlings,  ground  rye  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

Exceeding  Mill  Run  _ 

Norton  & Company,  Willis,  Topeka,  Kansas 

9195 

2.0 

8.0 

24.0 

Barley  hulls,  barley  bran,  barley  mid- 
dlings, ground  barley  screenings 

Wheat  Bran  & Screenings ___ 

6478 

3.5 

14.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Wheat  Shorts  & Screenings  

6479 

3.5 

16.0 

5.5 

Wheat  shorts,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings 

Oakland  City  Roller  Mills,  Oakland  City,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  __  

Oaktown  Milling  Company,  Oaktown,  Ind. 

8086 

2.5 

12.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  whole  wheat 
screenings,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal  * 

Mill  Run 

5085 

3.5 

13.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

Wheat  Shorts  ___  

5432 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

O’Conner  Milling  Company,  Corydon,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  _ ___  _ 

7024 

2.5 

13.0 

6.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Bran  and  Screenings  

7025 

3.0 

13.5 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

Odon  Milling  Company,  Odon,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed 

55 

3.9 

9.5 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

Corn  Feed  Meal  

5160 

2.8 

7.0 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Pure  Wheat  Bran  

5393 

3.8 

15.4 

9.0 

Wheat  bran 

Pure  Wheat  Middlings 

5394 

4.0 

16.0 

9.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Omco  Mixed  Feed  

6712 

3.8 

14.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  corn  bran, 
ground  wheat  screenings 

Champion  Mixed  Feed  __ 

Ogle-Cook  Grain  Company,  Hamlet,  Ind. 

9208 

3.3 

12.0 

12.0 

Corn,  wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings, 
shelled  oats,  corn  bran,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

Corn  & Oats  Chop  . __  _ 

8558 

3.5 

9.0 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

Oldenburg  Flour  Mills,  Oldenburg,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  _____  

489 

3.2 

12.8 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  whole  wheat  screenings 

Wheat  Shorts  __ 

2663 

3.0 

13.1 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Orangeville  Flour  Mills,  Orangeville,  Ind. 

Corn  Bran  

9154 

7.0 

10.0 

7.0 

Corn  bran 

Oriole  Milling  Company,  Oriole,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  __  _ __  

7389 

3.5 

13.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  Shorts  

7390 

3.5 

13.5 

7.5 

Wheat  shorts 

Orleans  Mill  & Elevator  Company,  Orleans,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  _ _ _ 

7019 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0- 

Wheat  middlings 

Mixed  Feed  _ _ 

7020 

3.4 

12.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  crushed 
wheat  screenings 

Feed  Meal 

7451 

5.0 

9.0 

6.0 

Corn,  corn  feed  meal 

Osakis  Milling  Company,  Osakis,  Minn. 

Fancy  Bran 

3194 

4.0 

14.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran 

Fancy  Middlings  _ 

3195 

4.0 

15.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Osgood  Flour  Mills,  Osgood,  Ind. 

Mixed  Mill  Feed 

3289 

3.0 

12.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

Ossian  Roller  Mills,  Ossian,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  __.  

6399 

3.1 

13.5 

9.9 

Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  Bran  and  Ground  Wheat  Screenings.— 

6400 

3.5 

13.5 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

5i 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Otwell  Milling  Company,  Otwell,  Ind. 

Otwell  s No.  1 Mixed  Feed  __  

3828 

3.2 

13.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  wheat 

Oxford  Feed  Mill,  Oxford,  Ind. 

Corn  Bran — 

9418 

2.5 

7.0 

10.0 

screenings,  corn  bran 

Com  bran 

Page  Milling  Company,  Thomas,  Topeka,  Kans. 
Wheat  Mixed  Feed  with  Ground  Screenings 
(Not  Exceeding  5%  Screenings) — 

8195 

3.0 

16.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  not  exceeding 

Bran  and  Screenings  

8899 

3.5 

15.5 

10.0 

5%  ground  wheat  screenings 

Wheat  bran,  not  to  exceed  5% 

Pure  Wheat  Shorts 

8693 

3.0 

15.0 

6.0 

ground  wheat  scourings 

Wheat  shorts 

Pancost  Milling  Company,  Elkhart,  Ind. 
Middlings  ___  - 

800 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Paoli  Milling  Company,  The,  Paoli,  Ind. 

Shorts  _ _ 

627 

3.0 

12.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Paoli  Mixed  Feed  — __ 

2820 

3.0 

10.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  whole  wheat 

Clear  Mill  Feed 

3019 

3.0 

12.0 

11.0 

screenings,  corn  bran 

Wheat  bran,  whole  wheat  screenings 

Paragon  Roller  Mills,  Paragon,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  _ _ _ _ 

1526 

3.8 

12.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran 

Park  & Pollard  Company  of  Illinois,  The, 
Chicago,  111. 

The  Park  & Pollard  Co.  of  Illinois’  Wheat 
Bran  with  Ground  Screenings  Not  Exceed- 
ing Mill  Run  . . ________ 

9159 

4.0 

14.5 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

The  Park  & Pollard  Co.  of  Illinois  Wheat 
Standard  Middlings  with  Ground  Screen- 
ings Not  Exceeding  Mill  Run 

9160 

5.0 

15.0 

9.5 

not  exceeding  mill  run 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 

Paxson,  Charles  E.,  Elkhart,  Ind. 

Paxson’s  Corn  and  Oats  Chop  

868 

3.9 

9.5 

6.0 

screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Corn,  oats 

Chop  Feed _ _ 

6407 

3.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Pearson,  Warren  W.,  Upland,  Ind. 

Eureka  Feed  _ __  _ 

1764 

3.9 

9.5 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

Mixed  Feed  __  

5&53 

2.5 

10.0 

8.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 

Pearson’s  Mixed  Feed 

8659 

3.0 

13.0 

12.0 

wheat  screenings,  ground  rye 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings, 

Wheat  Bran  & Screenings  _ _ 

8560 

3.0 

13.0 

12.0 

ground  wheat  screenings 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Wheat  Middlings  & Screenings  _ . _ 

8561 

3.0 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 

Pendleton  Feed  & Fuel  Company, 

Pendleton,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  _ __  

3279 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

screenings 

Wheat  bran 

Corn  Feed  Meal _ 

5146 

3.0 

7.0 

6.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Pennville  Milling  Company,  Pennville,  Ind. 
Wheat  Middlings  _ _ _ 

3545 

3.0 

13.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  Bran  & Ground  Wheat  Screenings  __ 
Wheat  Bran  & Corn  Bran 

5503 

8099 

2.9 

2.9 

12.0 

12.0 

10.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
Wheat  bran,  corn  bran 

Perrysville  Flour  Mills,  Perrysville,  Ind. 

“Victor”  

2674 

2.4 

9.0 

13.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran 

Peru  Milling  Company,  Peru,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  & Screenings  _ _ 

17 

3.1 

14.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Wheat  Middlings  _ . 

18 

3.1 

14.2 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Chon  Feed 

19 

3.2 

8.8 

4.0 

Corn,  oats 

52 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 

Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 


s&H 

.2  8.2 

A V 


cs  e 

1 .1 


and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Petersburg  Milling  & Grain  Company, 
Petersburg,  Ind. 

Petersburg  “A”  Mixed  Feed 

7765 

3.0 

13.0 

11.5 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 

Pfeffer  Milling  Company,  Lebanon,  111. 

Wheat  Middlings  with  Mill  Run  Wheat 
Screenings  

7528 

5.0 

13.0 

6.0 

wheat  screenings,  corn  bran,  corn 
feed  meal 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 

Phillips,  J.  C.,  Star  City,  Ind. 

“A”  Chop  Feed 

7737 

3.0 

10.0 

10.0 

screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Corn,  oats,  rye,  wheat 

Phillips  & Ross  Grain  Company,  Rosedale,  Ind. 
Mill  Feed  

3096 

2.0 

5.0 

4.0 

Wheat,  corn,  oats,  ground  wheat 

Phoenix  Flour  Mill,  Evansville,  Ind. 

Bran  & Screenings  

2252 

4.0 

15.0 

10.0 

screenings 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Phoenix  “A”  Mixed  Feed  

2253 

4.0 

15.0 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 

Wheat  Middlings  and  Ground  Screenings  

6856 

4.0 

15.5 

8.0 

wheat  screenings 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 

Rye  Mill  Feed  and  Ground  Rye  Mill  Run 
Screenings  

9206 

3.8 

15.5 

6.5 

screenings 

Rye  bran,  rye  middlings,  mill  run 

Phoenix  Milling  Company,  Davenport,  Iowa 
Bran  

8987 

4.1 

15.3 

13.1 

ground  rye  screenings 

Wheat  bran 

Shorts  v 

9017 

5.9 

17.6 

7.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Bran  with  Scour ings  not  Exceeding  Mill  Run. 

9056 

4.1 

15.3 

13.0 

Wheat  bran,  scourings  not  exceeding 

Pierce  Elevator  Company,  Union  City,  Ind. 
Pierce’s  Corn  & Oats  Chop 

399 

3.8 

9.4 

7.0 

mill  run 

Corn,  oats 

Wheat  Middlings  _ __  _ 

2623 

4.0 

14.0 

9.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Mixed  Feed  

2624 

3.8 

13.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Corn  Bran 

9375 

2.5 

7.0 

10.0 

Corn  bran 

Pillsbury  Flour  Mills  Company, 

Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Durum  Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings 
not  Exceeding  Mill  Run 

6869 

4.0 

11.0 

14.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Durum  Wheat  “B”  Middlings  with  Ground 
Screenings  not  Exceeding  Mill  Run  

6870 

4.0 

12.5 

11.0 

not  exceeding  mill  run 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 

Pillsbury’s  Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screen- 
ings not  Exceeding  Mill  Run  . _ 

7133 

4.0 

13.0 

13.0 

screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 
Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Pillsbury’s  Wheat  Standard  “B”  Middlings 
with  Ground  Screenings  not  Exceeding 
Mill  Run  _ _ 

7134 

4.0 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 

Pillsbury’s  Wheat  “A”  Middlings  with  Ground 
Screenings  not  Exceeding  Mill  Run  _ __ 

7135 

4.0 

15.0 

8.0 

screenings 

Wheat  middlings,  low  grade  wheat 

Pillsbury’s  Fancy  Wheat  Mixed  Feed  with 
Ground  Screenings  not  Exceeding  Mill  Run 

7136 

4.0 

14.0 

10.0 

flour,  ground  wheat  screenings 
Wheat  bran,  low  grade  wheat  flour. 

Pillsbury’s  XX  Daisy  - 

7137 

4.0 

16.0 

4.0 

ground  wheat  screenings 

Low  grade  wheat  flour 

Pillsbury’s  Rye  Middlings  with  Ground 
Screenings  not  Exceeding  Mill  Run.  

8519 

3.5 

15.0 

9.0 

Rye  middlings,  ground  rye  screenings 

Pincoffs  Company,  Maurice,  Chicago,  111. 

Pinco  Brand  Standard  Middlings  and  Screen- 
ings — 

8735 

4.0 

15.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 

Pinco  Brand  Wheat  Bran  and  Screenings 

8736 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

screenings 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Pinco  Brand  Barley  Mixed  Feed  

9328 

3.0 

12.0 

8.0 

Barley  bran,  barley  middlings,  barley 

Piqua  Milling  Company,  Piqua,  Ohio 

Wheat  Middlings  

2295 

4.0 

16.0 

7.0 

hulls 

Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  Bran _ 

2296 

3.0 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Bran  and  Middlings  Mixed 

5295 

3.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

Pitman,  H.  E.,  Bedford,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  ---  .. 

387 

3.2 

8.8 

4.0 

Corn,  oats 

53 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Plainfield  Milling-  Company,  Plainfield,  Ind. 

Bran  & Screenings  _ 

2339 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings, corn  bran 

Wheat  Middlings  

4408 

3.5 

13.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Corn  Feed  Meal 

7923 

2.0 

5.0 

4.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Corn  Bran 

8856 

1.0 

5.0 

26.5 

Corn  bran 

Plainville  Mill  & Elevator  Company, 

Plainville,  Kansas 

Bran  & Screenings  

7830 

4.0 

16.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  whole  wheat  screenings 

Shorts  . 

7831 

4.0 

17.0 

3.5 

Wheat  shorts 

Plainville  Milling  Company,  Plainville,  Ind. 

Coni  Bran 

3819 

4.0 

7.5 

14.0 

Corn  bran 

Middlings  _ __  _ _ 

3895 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Milled  Feed  ___  ___  

4140 

1.5 

4.5 

14.0 

Corn,  oats,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Wheat  Bran  _ _ . 

4372 

3.8 

14.2 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Millfeed  

5057 

3.5 

14.0 

7.5 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings 

Corn  Feed  Meal ...  __  _ 

5162 

2.5 

6.8 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Plant  Milling  Company,  Geo.  P.,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

^P^Bran  & Screenings 

4763 

3.0 

15.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  whole  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

Mixed  Feed  & Screenings 

4754 

3.5 

15.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  whole  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

p Wheat  Middlings  with  Screenings  not 

Exceeding  Mill  Run 

Plymouth  Roller  Mills,  Plymouth,  Ind. 

5558 

4.0 

17.0 

6.5 

Wheat  middlings,  whole  wheat  screen- 
ings not  exceeding  mill  run 

Wheat  Bran  

8051 

3.8 

15.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Plotnicki  & Company,  Louis  P., 

South  Bend,  Ind. 

Polonia  Chop  Feed 

6033 

3.5 

9.0 

9.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Mixed  Feed  _ __  __  

6892 

3.0 

13.5 

10.0 

Middlings  & Screenings  __ 

6893 

3.0 

13.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 

cpT’PPTi  in  crc 

Portland  Equity  Exchange,  The,  Portland,  Ind. 

Corn  Feed  Meal  __  _ 

9241 

2.0 

7.5 

11.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Poseyville  Milling  Company,  The, 

Poseyville,  Ind. 

Wheat  Shorts  & Screenings  __  ___  __  

7676 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts,  ground  wheat  screen- 

Mixed  Bran  and  Screenings  _ _ 

7677 

3.7 

14.0 

11.0 

mgs 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

Prairie  State  Milling-  Company,  Chicago,  111. 

Garland  Wheat  Bran  and  Screenings.  _ 

Wheat  Standard  Middlings  with  Ground 

6845 

3.5 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

Screenings  Not  Exceeding  Mill  Run  . 

Prater-Mottier  Company,  Terre  Haute,  Ind. 

7412 

4.0 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Corn  Feed  Meal  ...  _ ..  

7704 

2.0 

7.0 

5.5 

Corn  feed  meal 

Praters  Wheat  Eran  & Screenings 

8145 

3.0 

10.0 

14.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Praters  Mixed  Feed  

8174 

4.0 

14.5 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings, 
ground  wheat  screenings 

Princeton  Milling  Company,  Princeton,  Ind. 

Star  Brand  Mixed  Feed  . __ 

1978 

3.5 

13.0 

7.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

Star  Feed 

8618 

3.5 

13.5 

L1.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Wheat  Middlings  

8619 

3.5 

13.5 

6.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Probst  & Kassebaum,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  _ 

7081 

3.5 

16.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  crushed 
wheat  screenings 

Puritan  Mills,  The,  Medora,  Ind. 

Puritan  Feed  Meal  . _ 

8645 

2.5 

8.0 

7.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Puritan  Mixed  Feed  __ 

8904 

3.6 

14.0 

8.5 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

54 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Purity  Oats  Company  of  Davenport, 

Davenport,  Iowa 

Oat  Middlings  . 

8440 

5.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Oat  middlings 

Pyrmont  Mills  Company,  Pyrmont,  Ind. 

Pyrmont  Com  and  Oats  Chop _ 

5839 

3.9 

9.5 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

Pyrmont  Bran  _ 

Rakestraw,  H.  E.,  Oakford,  Ind. 

7157 

3.0 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Perfection  Corn  and  Oats  Chop  _ _ 

6495 

3.5 

9.0 

6.0 

Cora,  oats 

“A”  Perfection  Chop  Feed 

6496 

3.5 

9.0 

10.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Raper  & Company,  T.  A.,  Spencer,  Ind. 

Raper’s  Mixed  Feed  __  

2375 

3.5 

14.0 

6.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  oats,  corn 

Rankin  & Company,  M.  G.,  Milwaukee,  Wis. 
Jersey  Rye  Middlings  with  Ground  Screenings 

Not  Exceeding  Mill  Run  _ _ _ 

Wheat  Middlings  with  Ground  Screenings 

8679 

3.0 

14.0 

3.0 

Rye  middlings,  ground  rye  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

Not  Exceeding  Mill  Run  _ 

Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings  not 

8680 

4.0 

15.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Exceeding  Mill  Run 

Rapier  Grain  & Seed  Company,  Owensboro,  Ky. 

8681 

4.0 

14.0 

9.5 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

Shipstuff  

71692 

3.5 

15.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

Raschka,  William,  Ainsworth,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  & Ground  Screenings  

7436 

3.5 

13.5 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Wheat  Middlings  & Ground  Screenings 

7437 

3.5 

13.5 

10.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Ray  & Rice,  Camden,  Ind. 

Wheat  Shorts  

3002 

3.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Wheat  Bran  

5342 

3.3 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Shorts  & Low  Grade  Flour 

8534 

3.0 

12.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts,  low  grade  wheat  flour 

Red  Mill,  The,  F airland,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  _ — 

2601 

3.8 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Wheat  Middlings  

3256 

2.5 

13.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings 

“A”  Mixed  Feed — - 

4638 

3.5 

13.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  whole  wheat  screenings, 
corn  bran 

Corn  Feed  Meal  _ 

4539 

2.7 

7.6 

8.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Red  Wing  Milling  Company,  Red  Wing,  Minn. 

Wheat  middlings 

Bixota  Standard  Middlings  

5493 

5.7 

18.3 

7.5 

Bixota  Flour  Middlings 

5494 

5.1 

16.1 

3.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Bixota  Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings.. 

7158 

4.8 

14.0 

13.2 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

Bixota  Wheat  Middlings  

7641 

5.1 

15.4 

9.8 

Wheat  middlings 

Reed  & Company,  H.  G.,  Clymers,  Ind. 

Corn  & Oats  Chop 

2323 

3.9 

9.5 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

Chop  Feed  

5319 

3.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Reiners,  Wm.  F.,  Birdseye,  Ind. 

Reiners’  Mixed  Feed  

Reserve  Milling  Company,  Reserve,  Ind. 

7743 

3.2 

13.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran,  dust 
collector  dust 

Wheat  Bran  & Shorts 

3817 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts 

Rice  Cereal  Company,  New  Haven,  Ind. 

Com  bran,  corn  germ,  corn  grits 

Corn  Feed  Meal  _ __ 

9412 

1.8 

10.0 

5.0 

Dairy  Feed 

9413 

10.0 

10.0 

10.0 

Corn  bran,  corn  germ 

Richards  & Son,  G.  W.,  New  Paris,  Ohio 

Richards  Chop  Feed  

5073 

3.3 

10.0 

5.7 

Corn,  oats,  rye,  salt 

55 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


LABEL 


Richland  Milling  Company,  Bloomfield,  Ind.24 

Wheat  Bran  

Mixed  Feed  

Richland  Mills,  Bloomfield,  R.  R.  2,  Ind. 

Wheat  Shorts  

Richmond  Corn  Mills,  Richmond,  Ind. 

Corn  Bran  : 

Rittenhouse,  E.  S.,  Liberty  Mills,  Ind. 

Liberty  Bird  Bran  

Liberty  Bird  Middlings  

River  Side  Barn  & Feed  Store,  Marion,  Ind. 
Chop  Feed  

Riverside  Milling  Company,  Clinton,  Iowa 

Bran  

Shorts  

Tip  Top  Feed 

Bran  & Ground  Screenings 

Roach  & Rothenberger,  Delphi,  Ind. 

Corn  and  Oats  Chop 

Shorts  and  Middlings  i 

A.  Mixed  Feed  

Robinson,  Geo.  M.,  Brewersville,  Ind. 

Corn  Bran  

Corn  Feed  Meal  

Rochester  Roller  Mills,  Rochester,  Ind. 

Middlings  

Bran  

Rockport  Milling  Company,  Rockport,  Ind. 

A.  Mixed  Feed  

Bran  & Screenings  

Kopp’s  Wheat  Middlings  

Kopp’s  Mixed  Feed  

Kopp’s  White  Middlings 

Corn  Feed  Meal  

Rodger  Bros.,  Hanover,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  

Rohm  Bros.,  Rockville,  Ind. 

Feed  Meal  i 

Mill  Feed  

Shorts  and  Screenings  Product 

Mixed  Feed  

Rohm  Bros.  & Company,  Mansfield,  Ind. 

Shorts  

Mill  Feed  

Rokowski,  Alex,  South  Bend,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  

24  Succeeded  by  Richland  Mills 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

1149 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

6576 

3.0 

12.5 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bra.n, 
corn  meal,  corn  feed  meal,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

8895 

3.0 

13.0 

6.0 

Wheat  shorts 

1727 

5.0 

8.0 

13.0 

Corn  bran 

3043 

2.5 

12.5 

20.0 

Wheat  bran 

3044 

2.5 

12.5 

20.0 

Wheat  middlings 

7130 

2.8 

8.5 

8.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

5306 

4.0 

14.9 

13.5 

Wheat  bran 

5307 

4.3 

17.9 

10.1 

Wheat  shorts 

5308 

3.6 

14.7 

4.4 

Wheat  middlings 

5992 

4.0 

14.9 

13.5 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

284 

3.9 

9.5 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

286 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts,  middlings 

7730 

3.8 

11.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  scourings,  whole 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

6524 

6.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Corn  bran 

6980 

2.5 

7.5 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

2169 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings 

2170 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

2247 

3.9 

13.3 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran, 
ground  wheat  screenings 

2248 

3.8 

13.3 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

2748 

3.5 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

3679 

3.0 

10.0 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran,  corn 
feed  meal 

7477 

2.3 

13.5 

6.0 

Wheat  middlings 

9425 

3.5 

6.5 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

6916 

2.5 

12.5 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

5336 

2.5 

6.0 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

5671 

3.5 

15.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  shorts,  corn 
bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

8110 

4.0 

15.0 

10.0 

Wheat  shorts,  ground  and  bolted 
wheat  screenings 

9376 

3.0 

15.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  rye 
bran,  rye  middlings,  ground  rye 
screenings,  corn  bran 

Wheat  shorts 

295 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

3991 

3.0 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  shorts, 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

1961 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

56 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Roper  & Brown,  Hobart,  Ind. 

Hobart  Wheat  Bran  __  

4178 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Hobart  Chop  Reed  _ _ _ _ ___  

4409 

3.8 

9.5 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

Hobart  Wheat  Middlings 

Hobart  “Rye  Feed”  _ 

5960 

3.5 

14.0 

7.0 

WTheat  middlings 

5993 

2.0 

13.0 

8.0 

Rye  bran,  rye  middlings 

Buckwheat  Mixed  Reed 

6218 

3.0 

12.6 

35.0 

Buckwheat  middlings,  buckwheat 
hulls 

Wheat  Middlings  with  Screenings 

7684 

3.5 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Wheat  Bran  with  Screenings 

7685 

3.5 

14.0 

13.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

Rose  Milling  Company,  Alfordsville,  Ind.25 

Wheat  Middlings  __  

909 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Bran  

Rothrock,  Julias,  White  Cloud,  Ind. 

910 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Julius  Rothrock’s  Mixed  Reed 

4553 

3.5 

14.0 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  crushed 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

Rouse  & Son,  Wm.,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  . _ _ 

3191 

3.7 

13.5 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  ground  wheat 
screenings,  corn  bran 

Corn  Reed  Meal  

7114 

2.5 

7.5 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Ruff,  G.  W.,  Springport,  Ind. 

Mixed  Reed  __  

5853 

2.7 

10.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

Wheat  Middlings  

5854 

2.8 

12.5 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Ruoff,  Geo.  D.,  Osgood,  Ind. 

Rye  Shorts  

2869 

2.5 

14.0 

7.0 

Rye  shorts 

Wheat  Shorts  ___  

3'054 

3.0 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Wheat  Bran  _ ___  _ _ 

3065 

3.0 

12.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  Shorts  & Crushed  Wheat  Screenings.— 

7712 

3.0 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  shorts,  crushed  wheat  screen- 
ings 

Russell  & Company,  Portland,  Ind. 

Chop  Reed 

6798 

3.0 

8.7 

7.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Russell-Miller  Milling  Company,  Fargo,  N.  D. 

Bran  _ __  

3584 

4.0 

13.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran 

Red  Dog 

3585 

4.5 

17.0 

6.0 

Low  grade  wheat  flour  containing 
the  finer  particles  of  wheat  bran 

Standard  Middlings 

5182 

4.0 

15.0 

9.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Russell-Miller  Milling  Company, 

Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Wheat  middlings 

Rich  Country  Middlings 

7780 

5.0 

15.0 

6.0 

Flour  Middlings  ..  _ 

7810 

5.0 

15.0 

6.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Occident  Mixed  Reed . __  

8156 

4.5 

15.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  red  dog  flour 

Corn  Mill  Reed 

9253 

10.0 

10.0 

12.0 

Corn  bran,  corn  middlings 

Rye  Middlings 

9390 

3.5 

16.0 

9.0 

Rye  middlings 

Russell  Milling  Company,  Russell,  Kansas 

Wheat  Shorts  . 

1801 

4.5 

17.0 

7.4 

Wheat  shorts 

Wheat  Middlings  

1802 

5.6 

18.0 

5.2 

Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  Bran  

18:3 

4.0 

15.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Sage,  L.  L.,  Adamsville,  Mich. 

Sage’s  Perfection  Corn  and  Oats  Chop 

4619 

3.9 

9.8 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

Sager’s  Mill,  Valparaiso,  Ind. 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

Mixed  Reed  

6189 

3.0 

13.0 

7.0 

Sahm,  Adam,  Lawrenceville,  Ind. 

Sahms  Middlings  

560 

4.0 

15.6 

5.4 

Wheat  middlings 

Sahms  Wheat  Bran 

561 

3.7 

14.0 

10.7 

Wheat  bran 

25  Succeeded  by  F.  N.  Baker 


57 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 


Salem  Farmers  Milling  Company,  Salem,  Ind. 
Star  Mixed  Feed 

Wheat  Shorts  


3664 


3.5  13.5 


6922 


12.0 


and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


11.0 

7.0 


Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings, corn  bran 
Wheat  shorts 


Schaefer,  Karl  H.,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 
Schaefer’s  Special  Corn  Feed  Meal.. 
Corn  Bran  


8119 

9230 


3.0  8.0  5.0 
2.5  7.0  10.0 


Corn  feed  meal 
Corn  bran 


Schaefer  & Sehwartzkopf,  Columbus,  Ind. 

No.  6 Corn  Bran 

Acorn  Wheat  Middlings  

Mixed  Feed  


476 

21.02 

4622 


Schilt,  W.  F.,  Bremen,  Ind. 
Wheat  Shorts  & Screenings 


6688 


Wheat  Bran  

Corn  Bran .-1 

Schnaible  Grain  Company,  The  Matt, 
LaFayette,  Ind. 

Mixed  Ground  Corn  and  Oats 


7971 

9244 


3 


Schnell,  Joseph,  Schnellville,  Ind. 
Shipstuff  


7088 


Schneider  Milling  & Baking  Company,  The 
John,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 
Rye  Feed 

Scholl  & Tieteman,  Weisburg,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  & Screenings 

Big  Four  Mixed  Feed 

Schreiber  Hay  & Grain  Company, 

St.  Joseph,  Mo. 

Wheat  Bran  & Screenings 

Flour  Middlings  

Schreiber  Milling  & Grain  Company, 

St.  Joseph,  Mo. 

Wheat  Bran  & Screenings 

Wheat  Shorts  

Flour  Middlings  

Schrock,  M.  C.,  Goshen,  Ind. 

Corn  & Oats  Chop * 


5851 


7679 

8641 


7750 

7751 


8846 

8847 

8848 


2759 


Schroeder,  E.  F.,  Crown  Point,  Ind.20 
Corn  & Oats  Chop 

Schulenborg  & Donselman,  Dillsboro,  R.  R.  3, 
Ind. 

Wheat  Shorts  

Wheat  Bran  and  Screenings 

Corn  Bran  

Schulte,  W.  C.,  Freelandville,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  


1356 

2678 

9225 

9226 

6434 


Wheat  Bran  . 
Wheat  Shorts 
Corn  Bran  __ 


6435 

6433 

9217 


5.0 

2.0 
3.5 


8.0 

11.0 

14.0 


13.0  Corn  bran 

7.0  Wheat  middlings 

10.0  Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 

wheat  screenings 


3.8 

3.7 

2.0 


14.0 

14.0 

7.0 


8.0  Wheat  shorts,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings 

10.0  Wheat  bran 

16.0  Corn  bran 


3.0 


9.0 


7.0 


Corn,  oats 


2.5  12.0 


6.0  Wheat  bran,  middlings 


3.7  14.0 


7.0  Rye  bran,  rye  middlings 


4.0  14.0 

3.6  13.5 


7.0 

10.0 


Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  corn  bran, 
ground  wheat  screenings 


3.5 

3.0 


14.0 

15.0 


10.5 

5.5 


Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
Wheat  middlings 


3.5 

3.0 

3.0 


14.0 

15.0 

16.0 


10.5 

8.5 

6.5 


Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Wheat  shorts 

Wheat  flour  middlings 


3.5 


7.0  Corn,  oats 


3.5  9.0  9.0 


Corn,  oats 


3.3 

3.0 

2.5 


13.3 

12.0 

7.0 


8.0  Wheat  shorts 

10.0  Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 
10.0  Corn  bran 


4.0  14.1 


3.6  12.0 
4.0  14.0 
2.5  7.0 


9.0  Wheat  bran,  shorts,  ground  wheat 

screenings,  corn  bran,  low  grade 
flour 

10.0  Wheat  bran 

8.0  Wheat  shorts 
10.0  Corn  bran 


26  Succeeded  by  Ernest  H.  Hixon 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

| Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

[ per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Schultz,  Baujan  & Company,  Beardstown,  111. 

Sunbeam  Middlings  and  Screenings 

5967 

4.0 

15.0 

9.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Sunbeam  Bran  _ __  _ __  _ __  ___ 

6013 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Schultz  Bros.,  Elberfeld,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  and  Screenings 

3924 

3.5 

13.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  crushed  wheat  screen- 
ings 

Middlings  __  

3925 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Schuppert  & Sons,  M.,  Depauw,  Ind. 

Schupperts  Wheat  Middlings 

6060 

3.5 

13.0 

5.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Schupperts  Mixed  Feed 

0522 

3.5 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

Scientific  Milling  Company,  Marion,  Ind. 

Corn  Bran  

7148 

3.5 

7.0 

10.0 

Corn  bran 

Scottsburg  Milling  Company,  Scottsburg,  Ind. 

Home  Mixed  Feed  _ 

6236 

3.5 

13.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  whole  wheat 
screenings,  corn  bran 

Seagly,  A.  J.,  Stroh,  Ind. 

Corn  & Oats  Chop 

1698 

3.9 

9.5 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

Seidel,  W.  T.,  Orland,  Ind.27 

Wheat  Bran  _ __  

6372 

3.0 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  Middlings  

6373 

3.0 

13.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Semon,  F.  T.,  Vernon,  Ind. 

Semon’s  Mixed  Feed  __  

5631 

3.0 

12.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  corn  bran 

Shane  Bros.  & Wilson  Company, 

Hastings,  Minn. 

Cloverleaf  Bran  __  

Wheat  Standard  Middlings  with  Ground 

4925 

3.7 

14.0 

12.6 

Wheat  bran 

Screenings  not  Exceeding  Mill  Run  . 

8485 

5.0 

15.0 

9.5 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Shane  Bros.  & Wilson  Company, 

Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Snowball  Wheat  Flour  Middlings  with 

Ground  Screenings  not  Exceeding  Mill  Run. 
Barley  Millfeed  with  Ground  Barley  Screen- 

8901 

4.5 

15.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

ings  — 

9326 

3.1 

8.5 

21.0 

Barley  hulls,  barley  bran,  barley 
middlings,  ground  barley  screenings 

Shawnee  Milling  Company,  Topeka,  Kansas 

Wheat  Bran  with  Screenings  . . 

7892 

4.0 

14.0 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  not  to  exceed  8% 
ground  wheat  screenings 

Wheat  Middlings  ... 

8852 

4.0 

16.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Sheaks,  Irvin,  Indiana  Harbor,  Ind. 

WTheat  Bran  & Screenings  . ... 

6511 

3.5 

13.5 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Sheffield-King  Milling  Company, 

Minneapolis,  Minn. 

“Fairybow”  

7598 

5.0 

15.0 

9.5 

Wheat  middlings,  pulverized  wheat 
screenings 

“Gold  Mine”  Feed 

7599 

4.5 

15.0 

9.9 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  low  grade  wheat 
flour,  pulverized  wheat  screenings 

“Whitehooe”  

7600 

4.5 

16.0 

7.6 

Wheat  middlings,  pulverized  wheat 
screenings 

Low  Grade  _ 

7001 

4.6 

16.9 

1.7 

Low  grade  wheat  flour 

Fancy  “Brodflake”  _ 

7002 

3.5 

13.5 

12.7 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Sheldon  & Company,  Angola,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  & Ground  Wheat  Screenings 

6484 

3.0 

13.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Wheat  Middlings  & Ground  Wheat  Screenings 

0485 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Succeeded  by  Orland  Milling  Co. 


59 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Shellabarger  Mill  & Elevator  Company, 

Salina,  Kansas 

Bran  & Screenings  _ 

5820 

3.0 

16.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Wheat  Brown  Shorts  & Screenings 

8078 

3.0 

16.0 

6.5 

Wheat  brown  shorts,  ground  wheat 

Sheridan  Milling  Company,  Sheridan,  Ind.28 
Corn  Bran  _ 

3232 

3.5 

8.0 

14.0 

screenings,  cleanings  not  to  exceed 
8% 

Corn  bran 

Wheat  Bran  __  

5595 

2.8 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  Shorts  __  

5596 

1.7 

11.0 

6.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Shetterly  Bros.,  Lapel,  Ind. 

Bran  and  Middlings  - ___ 

2644 

3.0 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

Shields  & Bliss,  Sardinia,  Ind. 

Colonial  Chop  Eeed  

9351 

3.0 

9.0 

11.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Shine  & Company,  John  H.,  New  Albany,  Ind. 

Star  Feed  __  _ 

863 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 

Wheat  Bran  __  _ 

2086 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

wheat  screenings 

Wheat  bran 

Star  Middlings  ...  _____  _ 

5457 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Star  Feed  Meal 

5907 

2.5 

7.0 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Corn  Bran  _ _ _ _ __ 

6677 

5.0 

8.0 

18.0 

Corn  bran 

Shockley  & Son,  Madison,  Ind. 

Corn  Bran  _ _ ___ 

5448 

3.5 

7.0 

15.0 

Corn  bran 

Shotwell,  Chas.  A.,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Rye  Middlings  __  _ 

2230 

2.5 

14.0 

6.0 

Rye  middlings 

Shotwell  & Company,  Chas.  A., 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Blair’s  Bran  ._  ___  _ _ 

4514 

3.5 

14.0 

9.5 

Wheat  bran 

Sims  Co-Operative  Grain  Company,  Sims,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed 

8407 

3.2 

8.8 

11.0 

Corn,  oats 

Sims  Milling  Company,  Frankfort,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  

6303 

3.7 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  Shorts  _ _ 

6304 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Chop  Feed 

6723 

3.0 

9.0 

8.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Corn  Bran  

6926 

3.5 

8.0 

13.0 

Corn  bran 

Bran  __  

8922 

3.7 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran 

Simmerman,  Jacob,  Eaton,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

5722 

3.4 

8.7 

9.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Slick  & Company,  L.  E.,  Bloomington,  111. 
Safety  First  Corn  By-Product  _ 

8382 

6.0 

10.0 

8.0 

Corn  feed  meal  (By-product  from 

Slick’s  Safety  First  Wheat  Bran  with 
Screenings  

8813 

3.5 

14.5 

10.5 

manufacture  of  table  meal  and 
grits  by  the  degerminating  process) 
Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Wirthmore  Wheat  Middlings  and  Ground 
Wheat  Screenings  not  Exceeding  Mill  Run___ 

8892 

4.5 

15.0 

8.0 

not  exceeding  mill  run 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 

Slick’s  Safety  First  Wheat  Middlings 

8893 

4.0 

15.0 

8.0 

screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 
Wheat  middlings 

Small  & Company,  W.  H.,  Evansville,  Ind. 

Corn  Bran  _ __ 

4447 

3.0 

6.0 

15.0 

Corn  bran 

Feed  Meal 

4537 

i.o 

7.0 

17.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Smith,  A.  S.,  Flint,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  _ _ 

1660 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  Middlings  _ _ 

1661 

4.0 

14.0 

7.C 

Wheat  middlings 

Succeeded  by  Mendenhall  & Weaver  Co. 


6o 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

Smith,  D.  R.,  Tipton,  Ind. 

Corn  Bran  _ 

1543 

5.0 

8.0 

13.0 

Chop  Feed 

3016 

3.5 

9.0 

6.0 

Mixed  Feed 

41081 

3.0 

14.0 

6.5 

Smock  & Caca,  Noblesville,  Ind. 

Bran  and  Shorts 

1424 

3.8 

14.5 

10.0 

Wheat  Middlings  

6881 

2.0 

12.0 

6.0 

Smoker,  Levi,  Michigantown,  Ind. 

Corn  & Oats  Chop 

1562 

3.9 

9.0 

9.0 

Snell  Mill  & Grain  Company,  The, 

Clay  Center,  Kansas 

Wheat  Bran  

4567 

3.5 

14.0 

13.0 

Wheat  Shorts  

4568 

4.0 

17.0 

6.0 

Snoddy,  M.  W.,  Covington,  R.  R.  1,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  and  Screenings  _ __  

1071 

3.5 

13.0 

10.0 

Bran  and  Middlings __  _ 

4717 

3.0 

14.0 

9.5 

Wheat  Middlings  _ 

4718 

2.5 

13.0 

8.0 

South  Side  Cereal  Mills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind. 
Wayne  Wheat  Middlings  with  Ground  Wheat 

Screenings  ___  _ 

6252 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wayne  Wheat  Bran  & Ground  Wheat  Screen- 

ings 

0253 

3.5 

14.0 

12.0 

Southern  Seed  Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Economy  Wheat  Shorts  and  Screenings.— 

8814 

4.0 

15.0 

6.0 

Economy  Wheat  Bran  and  Screenings 

8815 

4.0 

14.5 

9.5 

Economy  Wheat  Mixed  Feed  and  Screenings.. 

8816 

4.0 

14.5 

8.0 

Southwestern  Milling  Company,  Inc.,  The, 
Kansas  City,  Mo. 

“Red  Turkey”  Pure  Wheat  Bran 

9144 

4.0 

14.5 

11.8 

“Red  Turkey”  Wheat  Brown  Shorts  and 

Wheat  Scourings __ 

9145 

4.2 

15.0 

8.5 

“Red  Turkey”  Wheat  Gray  Shorts  and 

Wheat  Scourings  

9146 

3.8 

15.0 

8.0 

“Red  Turkey”  Pure  Wheat  Fancy  White 

Middlings  __  ... 

“S.  W.”  Mixed  Feed  & Wheat  Scourings 

9147 

2.5 

14.0 

6.5 

9148 

4.3 

14.5 

10.5 

“Aristos”  Mixed  Feed  & Wheat  Scourings 

9149 

4.0 

14.5 

9.8 

“Optima”  Pure  Soft  Wheat  Bran 

9150 

3.5 

14.0 

12.4 

“Merit”  Pure  Mixed  Feed  _ __  _ 

9151 

3.0 

16.0 

11.0 

“Optima”  Pure  Soft  Wheat  Mixed  Feed 

9152 

3.2 

15.8 

10.6 

South  Whitley  Mills,  South  Whitley,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  ...  ....  

2140 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  Bran  _ 

2142 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Sparks  Milling  Company,  Alton,  111. 

Try  Me  Bran  and  Screenings 

6778 

3.5 

15.0 

8.0 

Try  Me  Mixed  Feed 

7687 

3.5 

16.0 

9.0 

Sparks  Milling  Company,  Terre  Haute,  Ind. 

Wabash  Middlings 

2774 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wabash  Bran  and  Screenings 

2775 

3.5 

14.0 

11.0 

Wabash  Mixed  Feed 

3011 

3.5 

14.0 

11.0 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Corn  bran 
Corn,  oats 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  middlings 


Wheat  bran,  shorts 
Wheat  middlings 


Corn,  oats 


Wheat  bran 
Wheat  shorts 


Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
Wheat  bran,  middlings 
Wheat  middlings 


Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 


Wheat  shorts,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings not  exceeding  mill  run 
Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 
Wheat  bran,  shorts,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 


Wheat  bran 

Brown  wheat  shorts  containing  not 
more  than  5%  wheat  scourings 
Brown  wheat  shorts,  white  wheat 
middlings  containing  not  more  than 
3 y2%  wheat  scourings 
Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  bran,  brown  wheat  shorts 
containing  not  more  than  2%% 
wheat  scourings 

Wheat  bran,  brown  wheat  shorts, 
white  wheat  middlings  containing 
not  more  than  2%  wheat  scourings 
Wheat  bran 

Wheat  bran,  brown  wheat  shorts 
Wheat  bran,  brown  wheat  shorts, 
white  wheat  middlings 

Wheat  middlings 
Wheat  bran 


Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 
Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings  not  exceeding  mill 
run 

Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings 


6i 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Spink  Milling  Company,  The,  Washington,  Ind. 

Mixt  Peed __ 

Bran  and  Ground  Screenings  not  Exceeding 

6332 

3.5 

12.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran, 
ground  wheat  screenings  not  exceed- 
ing mill  run 

Mill  Run  

6597 

3.5 

12.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  ground 
wheat  screenings  not  exceeding  mill 

Wheat  Middlings ..  

6960 

3.7 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Fine  Mixed  Mill  Feed 

8137 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings,  corn  feed  meal 

Spring  Mill,  Paoli,  R.  R.  4,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  — __ 

2266 

4.0 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

Springer,  W.  D.,  Fortville,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  __ 

Springs  Valley  Milling  Company,  The, 

7303 

2.0 

7.0 

14.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal,  com 
bran,  ground  screenings  from  wheat, 
oats  and  corn  and  cob  meal 

French  Lick,  Ind. 

Valley  Mixed  Feed 

Squibb-Carter-Squibb  Company, 

6976 

3.0 

11.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings, 
ground  wheat  screenings,  corn  bran, 
corn  feed  meal 

Lawrenceburg,  Ind. 

Old  Dearborn  Mill  Feed 

9218 

5.7 

9.4 

3.0 

Corn  bran,  corn  germ  meal,  corn 

Stader,  Frank  E.,  Evansville,  Ind. 

meal 

Corn  Bran  _________ 

6343 

5.0 

8.0 

15.0 

Corn  bran 

Stader’s  “Mixed”  Horse  Feed  . 

8088 

3.5 

10.0 

8.0 

Com,  oats,  wheat  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Stafford,  Frank,  Bluffton,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  — 

3795 

3.2 

9.0 

8.5 

Corn,  oats 

Stafford  Grain  Company,  Hope,  Ind. 

Corn  Feed  Meal __ 

8533 

2.5 

7.5 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Stampers  Creek  Mill,  Paoli,  R.  R.  2,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  _ ___  ___  _ 

2264 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

Stanard-Tilton  Milling  Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Wheat  Bran  & Screenings 

5257 

3.0 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  whole  wheat  screenings 

Wheat  Middlings  with  Screenings  not 

Exceeding  Mill  Run  ___  __  _ 

Wheat  Mixed  Feed  with  Screenings  not 

7013 

4.0 

15.0 

6.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Exceeding  Mill  Run  __  __ 

St.  Anthony  Mill  Company,  St.  Anthony,  Ind. 

9065 

4.0 

15.0 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings, 
ground  wheat  screenings  not  exceed- 
ing mill  run 

Wheat  Bran,  Shorts  & Corn  Bran  

5262 

3.0 

13.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  corn  bran 

Star  & Crescent  Milling  Company,  Chicago,  111. 

Crescent  Middlings 

3110 

4.5 

16.0 

6.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Star  Red  Dog  _ _ _ 

Star  Middlings  with  Ground  Screenings  Not 

4391 

4.0 

16.5 

3.0 

Low  grade  wheat  flour  containing 
the  finer  particles  of  wheat  bran 

Exceeding  Mill  Run  

Star  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings  Not 

5376 

4.0 

15.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  to  exceed  mill  run 

Exceeding  Mill  Run  

Crescent  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings  Not 

5377 

4.0 

15.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  to  exceed  mill  run 

Exceeding  Mill  Run  _ 

Barley  Mixed  Feed  with  Ground  Barley 

5378 

4.0 

15.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  to  exceed  mill  run 

Screenings  not  Exceeding  Mill  Run  _ ___ 
Rye  Mixed  Feed  with  Ground  Screenings 

9193 

2.5 

12.0 

13.5 

Barley  hulls,  barley  bran,  barley 
middlings,  ground  barley  screenings 

not  Exceeding  Mill  Run 

Starlight  Milling  Company,  Borden,  R.  R.  1, 

9194 

3.0 

15.0 

7.0 

Rye  bran,  rye  middlings,  ground  rye 
screenings 

Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  __ 

7794 

2.0 

12.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran 

Wheat  Middlings  

7795 

2.0 

11.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Star  Mill  Company,  Huntingburg,  Ind. 

Star  Mixed  Feed 

3509 

3.5 

13.5 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  whole  wheat 
screenings,  corn  bran 

62 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Star  Milling  Company,  Aurora,  Ind. 

j 

Bran  _ _ _ _ _____ 

1088 

3.8 

14.2 

9.5 

Wheat  bran 

Middlings  _ _ 

2672 

4.0 

14.6 

6.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Mixed  Peed  __  ___  

Star  Milling  Company,  Shoals,  Ind. 

2675 

4.0 

13.5 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran 

Star  Wheat  Bran 

502 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Star  Shorts  _ _ _ — - 

503 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Star  Mixed  Peed 

Star  Roller  Mills,  Burlington,  Ind. 

9783 

3.0 

13.0 

10.0 

Oats,  wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn 
bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Chop  Feed  

3628 

3.5 

9.0 

10.0 

Corn,  oats 

Star  Mixed  Feed  

8396 

3.0 

14.0 

11.5 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

Pure  Wheat  Bran 

8397 

3.0 

14.0 

11.5 

Wheat  bran 

Star  Roller  Mills,  Carlisle,  Ind. 

Mixed  Peed  __  . 

5249 

2.8 

12.5 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  whole  wheat 
screenings,  corn  bran 

Star  Supply  Company,  Elkhart,  Ind. 

Star  Chop  Peed 

2336 

3.9 

9.5 

7..0 

Corn,  oats 

Starr  Mills,  South  Bend,  Ind. 

Wheat  & Rye  Middlings 

6000 

3.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings,  rye  middlings 

Mixed  Peed  

6001 

3.0 

14.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  rye  bran, 
ground  wheat  screenings 

Buckwheat  Mixed  Peed  _ _ 

Wheat  and  Rye  Middlings  and  Corn  Peed 

8990 

2.0 

10.0 

25.0 

Buckwheat  hulls,  buckwheat  mid- 
dlings 

Meal  

9177 

2.0 

10.0 

9.0 

Wheat  middlings,  rye  middlings,  corn 
feed  meal 

St.  Clair  Roller  Mills,  Ft.  Recovery,  Ohio 

St.  Clair  Roller  Mills  Wheat  Bran  ______ 

1743 

3.7 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

St.  Clair  Roller  Mills  Wheat  Middlings 

1744 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Steckley,  George,  Kendallville,  Ind. 

Chon  Peed  __  

405 

4.0 

10.0 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

Bran  & Screenings  ___  

5883 

3.5 

13.5 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings, corn  bran 

Mixed  Peed  _ __  _ 

5834 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings,  red  dog  flour, 
ground  wheat  screenings 

Steeb,  William,  Crown  Point,  Ind. 

Chop  Peed  _ ___ 

8112 

3.0 

8.0 

6.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Stendal  Milling  Company,  Stendal,  Ind. 

Mixed  Peed  _ 

6981 

3.0 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran 

Stephensport  Roller  Mills,  Stephensport,  Ky. 

Mixed  Feed  _ _ 

4828 

3.9 

14.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

Shipstuff  & Screenings _ 

6374 

4.1 

16.0 

8.5 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  red  dog 
flour,  4%  ground  wheat  screenings 

Wheat  Bran  & Screenings  __  _ _ 

6620 

4.0 

15.0 

8.0 

Wheat  bran,  2%  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Stevenson  & Linebrink,  Rochester,  R.  R.  9, 

Ind.29 

Wheat  Middlings  _ _____  

6017 

2.5 

12.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  Bran ._  

6018 

2.5 

12.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Stiefel  & Levy,  Port  Wayne,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Wheat  Screenings-- 

8494 

4.0 

14.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

Corn  Mill  Peed 

9288 

5.0 

10.0 

5.5 

Corn  bran,  corn  germ,  corn  meal 

St.  Joe  Milling  Company,  St.  Joe,  Ind. 

St.  Joe’s  Chop  Peed  . __  _ 

5126 

3.5 

9.0 

6.0 

Corn,  o&ts 

St.  Joe’s  Wheat  Middlings 

5127 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Mixed  Feed  _ _ . _ 

8025 

3.5 

13.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings 

Wheat  Bran  __  

8926 

3.5 

13.5 

11.0 

Wheat  bran 

29  Succeeded  by  Millark  Roller  Mills 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

St.  Mary’s  Mill  Company,  St.  Mary’s,  Mo. 
“Wheat  Middlings  and  Screenings” 

8188 

4.5 

15.5 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Slokes  Milling  Company,  Watertown,  S.  D. 
Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings  not 

Exceeding  Mill  Run 

8501 

3.5 

13.9 

8.5 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

Stone  Quarry  Mills,  Spiceland,  Ind. 

A.  Mixed  Feed  __  __  

4746 

2.5 

14.0 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

Stott,  David,  Detroit,  Mich. 

Pennant  Middlings  . 

4461 

5.0 

15.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Climax  Middlings  

5278 

5.0 

17.0 

6.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Stott  Flour  Mills,  Inc.,  David,  Detroit,  Mich. 

Stott’s  Fine  White  Middlings 

7672 

4.5 

15.0 

6.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Stott’s  Pure  Winter  Wheat  Bran  _ _ 

8336 

3.5 

13.0 

9.5 

Wheat  bran 

St.  Paul  Milling  Company,  St.  Paul,  Minn. 

Komo  Pure  Wheat  Bran 

8899 

4.0 

14.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran 

Komo  Standard  Middlings  with  Ground 

Screenings  not  Exceeding  Mill  Run___ 

8900 

4.5 

15.0 

10.5 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Studebaker  Grain  & Seed  Company, 

Bluffton,  Ind. 

Corn  and  Oats  Chop 

6739 

3.9 

9.5 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

Suckow  Company,  Franklin,  Ind. 

“Perfection”  Wheat  Middlings 

5946 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings 

“Perfection”  Wheat  Bran  _ _ 

5947 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

“Perfection”  Mixed  Feed  _ _ __  

6231 

4.0 

12.4 

9.5 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Middlings  and  Screenings  

7376 

3.5 

14.0 

8.0 

Suckow’s  Corn  By-Product i._ 

8521 

6.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Corn  feed  meal,  corn  germ  meal 

Corn  Feed  Meal  _ ...  

8589 

2.5 

7.5 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Sullivan  Mill  & Elevator  Company, 

Sullivan,  Ind. 

Corn  & Oats  Chop __  

2959 

3.5 

9.0 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

Mixed  Feed  _ __  __ 

6977 

3.4 

12.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts 

Corn  Feed  Meal  ...  _ 

7777 

2.5 

7.5 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Corn  Bran  _ 

7778 

3.0 

7.0 

13.0 

Corn  bran 

White  Middlings  _ 

8390 

1.2 

12.0 

5.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Sullivan  Mixed  Feed  

9219 

3.4 

12.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  ground  wheat 
screenings,  corn  bran 

Summerton  & Sons,  W’abash,  Ind. 

“Chop  Feed”  

4668 

2.0 

8.0 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

Swayzee  Milling  Company,  Swayzee,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  & Shorts  _ 

4475 

3.8 

13.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts 

Sweet,  W.  G.,  Royal  Center,  Ind. 

Sweet’s  Corn  & Oat  Chop  _ 

704 

3.9 

9.5 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

Syracuse  Flour  Mills,  Syracuse,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  _ 

6135 

4.0 

14.0 

6.5 

Wheat  middlings 

Bran  

6136 

4.0 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran 

Tapp  & Bridwell,  Bloomington,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed 

54 

4.0 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  whole  wheat 
screenings,  corn  bran 

Ground  Corn  & Oats  and  Corn  Feed  Meal 

4424 

2.5 

8.0 

8.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Wheat  Shorts  

4604 

3 5 

13.5 

7.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Corn  Feed  Meal  

8584 

2.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Taylor,  John  H.,  Ogilville,  Ind. 

Taylor’s  Mixed  Feed 

801 

3.8 

14.0  1 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings 

64 

Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Taylor-Hitz  Company,  Madison,  Ind. 

Middlings  _ __  

413 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Bran  _ ...  

414 

3.7 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran 

Taylor-Hitz  Co’s  Middlings  and  Screenings — 

6313 

3.7 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Mixed  Feed  . __  ...  _ _ 

9142 

3.7 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  corn 
bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Tell  City  Flouring  Mills,  Tell  City,  Ind. 

Bran  & Screenings _ 

Wheat  Middlings  and  Wheat  Screenings 

5640 

4.0 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  ground 
wheat  screenings  not  exceeding  mill 
run 

Seasoned  with  Salt __ 

6050 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings,  salt 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran, 
ground  wheat  screenings,  salt 

A.  Mixed  Feed  ..  

6051 

4.0 

14.0 

9.7 

Tennant  & Hoyt  Company,  Lake  City,  Minn. 

Wheat  Bran  and  Screenings 

6622 

4.0 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

Wheat  Middlings  and  Screenings 

6623 

5.0 

16.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Thomas  & Son,  A.  R.,  Markle,  Ind. 

Thomas’  Wheat  Bran _ _ 

3187 

3.2 

14.0 

9.5 

Wheat  bran 

Thomas’  Bran  and  Shorts  ... 

3188 

3.2 

14.1 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts 

Wheat  Shorts  

3189 

3.2 

14.1 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Corn,  Oats  & Rye  Chop _ _ 

4077 

3.2 

9.5 

10.0 

Corn,  oats,  rye 

Wheat  Bran,  with  Corn  Bran  and  Ground 

Screenings  ___ 

6337 

3.5 

14.0 

9.5 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

“Mixed  Feed” 

7514 

3.5 

14.5 

9.5 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  ground  wheat 
screenings,  corn  bran 

Corn  feed  meal 

Corn  Feed  Meal  

9426 

3.0 

8.0 

2.5 

Thompson,  Edgar,  Somerville,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  _ 

7448 

3.5 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  shorts,  salt 

Thornburg  Milling  Company,  Martinsville,  Ind.. 

Corn  Feed  Meal  . 

8591 

2.5 

7.5 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal- 

Thornburg  Milling  & Elevator  Company, 
Martinsville,  Ind. 

Shorts  _ _ 

65 5 

3.2 

12.5 

5.2 

Wheat  shorts 

Bran  _ _ ___ 

656 

3.2 

14.0 

10.1 

Wheat  bran 

Mixed  Feed  ... 

2950 

3.5 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  corn  bran,  dust 
collector  bran 

Thorntown  Grain  Company,  Thorntown,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  . _.  ._  

5586 

3.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Thurgood,  Chas.  R.,  Vincennes,  Ind. 

Mixed  Bran  and  Screenings 

8076 

3.0 

12.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

Wheat  Middlings  

8077 

3.0 

13.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Tilman,  A.  S.,  Wabash,  Ind. 

Corn  & Oats  Chop  Feed  _ 

8916 

4.0 

10.0 

8.0 

Corn,  oats 

Timbrook  & Hursh,  Auburn,  Ind.30 

Auburn  Roller  Mills  Middlings  

6985 

3.4 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Auburn  Roller  Mills  Wheat  Bran 

7031 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Titus  & Delph,  Shirley,  Ind.31 

Mixed  Bran  ..  ..  . 

6486 

3.0 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran 

Tobrocke,  Henry,  Waymansville,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  ...  __  

1958 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

30  Succeeded  by  H.  W.  Timbrook 

31  Succeeded  by  Geo.  Logan 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Topeka  Flour  Mills  Company,  The, 

Topeka,  Kansas 

Wheat  Shorts  & Ground  Screenings  

8019 

3.0 

14.5 

3.5 

Wheat  shorts,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings 

Wheat  Bran  and  Scourings 

8020 

3.5 

15.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  scourings 

Tresselt  & Sons,  C.,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  

409 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  Shorts  

410 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Wheat  Middlings  

411 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Trimble  Milling  Company,  The,  Milton,  Ky. 

Wheat  Bran  

1988 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Shipstuff  __  _ 

1989 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Trow  Company,  W.,  Madison,  Ind. 

Trow’s  Mixed  Feed  

1965 

4.0 

14.0 

8.5 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings  not  exceeding  mill 
run 

Trow’s  Middlings  & Screenings  

1972 

4.5 

16.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Trow’s  Bran  and  Screenings 

1973 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  w'heat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

Truitt  & O’Neal,  East  Enterprise,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  . ..  

Tuttle  & Company,  R.,  Columbia  City,  Ind. 

8749 

3.8 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran, 
ground  wheat  screenings  not  to  ex- 
ceed mill  run 

Perfection  Bran  _ _ ....  

817 

3.8 

*14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Perfection  Middlings 

818 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Uhl-Snider  Milling  Company,  Connersville,  Ind. 

Bran  _ . 

5135 

3.5 

14.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran 

Wheat  Middlings  

5136 

3.7 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Ulrey  & Company,  A.  A.,  Fairmount,  Ind. 

Corn  Feed  Meal 

3691 

3.0 

7.0 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Mixed  Feed  

6901 

3.0 

13.5 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

Ulrich  & Sons,  Levi,  Greensboro,  Ind. 

Corn  Bran . . 

2961 

5.5 

8.5 

13.0 

Corn  bran 

Shorts  

5396 

2.0 

12.0 

7.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Bran  __  __  

5397 

3.5 

12.5 

12.0 

Wheat  bran 

Union  Elevator  Company,  New  Richmond,  Ind. 

Union  Chop  Feed 

7755 

3.0 

9.0 

8.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Union  Feed  & Poultry  Company, 

Lafayette,  Ind. 

Union  Chop  Feed __  . 

7182 

3.5 

9.5 

7.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Union  Roller  Mills,  West  Harrison,  Ind. 

Kiewit’s  Wheat  Middlings 

7078 

3.9 

14.0 

6.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Kiewit’s  Bran  and  Screenings 

7544 

3.7 

14.0 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings, corn  bran 

Upton  Mill  & Elevator  Company, 

Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Corn  Feed  Meal 

9335 

5.7 

9.5 

6.5 

Corn  feed  meal 

Valentine  & Valentine,  Franklin,  Ind. 

Middlings  

932 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Mixed  Feed  

934 

4.0 

12.4 

7.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

Corn  Bran  

1999 

3.9 

6.9 

11.0 

Corn  bran 

Oat  Chops 

3295 

3.5 

9.0 

8.0 

Corn,  oats 

Middlings  and  Screenings  

7455 

3.5 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Wheat  Bran  and  Screenings 

8580 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

66 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


LABEL 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


CO  C«H 
.2  8,2 
o ft  Is 


& 'I 

+>  . o 

03  £ 

03  S Pi 
« 0)  <o 

112 
At  ft  O 


-t->  £ 
C«H 
0)  m 
«•§ 
S-i  3 

X £ 

ft  o 


and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Valier  & Spies  Milling  Company, 

St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Valier’s  Mixed  Feed  

Yalier’s  Wheat  Bran  with/ Ground  Wheat 

Screenings  

Valier’s  Wheat  Middlings  with  Ground 
Wheat  Screenings  


Valparaiso  Grain  & Elevator  Company, 
Valparaiso,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  

Corn  & Oats  Chop 

Wheat  Shorts  

Red  Dog  Flour  


Wheat  Bran  & Screenings 

Victoria  Milling  Company,  Jasper,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  

Victoria  Wheat  Shorts  


Wabash  Milling  Company,  Wabash,  Ind. 

Middlings  — — 

Summerton’s  Mixed  Feed 


Wagner-White  Company,  Inc.,  Jackson,  Mich. 
Bran  with  Screenings  not  to  Exceed  Mill  Run_ 
Middlings  with  Screenings  not  to  Exceed  Mill 
Run  


Rye  Middlings 
Mixed  Feed  __ 


Wakarusa  Milling  Company,  Wakarusa,  Ind. 

Wakarusa  Wheat  Bran  — 

Wakarusa  Corn  & Oats  Chop 

Wheat  Middlings  


Walden,  Sam,  West  Terre  Haute,  Ind. 
Corn  Grit  


Walker  & Company,  Peter  M.,  Loogootee,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  

Bran  & Screenings  539 


Walker  & Son,  J.  M.,  Middletown,  Ind. 

Gilt  Edge  Bran  

Gilt  Edge  Middlings 

Walker’s  Mixed  Feed 

Corn  Bran 


Wallace  Milling  Company,  The,  Dale,  Ind. 

Wallace’s  Pure  Wheat  Middlings 

Wallace’s  Mixed  Feed  

“Rye  Mixed  Feed  and  Ground  Rye  Screen- 
ings” — 


Walnut  Creek  Milling  Company, 
Great  Bend,  Kansas 

Wheat  Bran  

Wheat  Shorts  


Walton,  A.  G.,  Atlanta,  Ind. 
Mixed  Feed  


Walton  & Whisler,  Atlanta,  Ind.32 
A.  Mixed  Feed--— 


6127 

4.0 

15.0 

9.0 

6156 

3.5 

14.5 

10.0 

6157 

5.0 

16.0 

8.0 

1402 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

1403 

3.5 

9.0 

9.0 

1405 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

1406 

2.0 

16.0 

1.7 

6008 

3.8 

14.0 

11.0 

2608 

3.5 

14.0 

8.0 

7170 

3.3 

15.0 

8.0 

2 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

5068 

3.0 

13.0 

11.0 

8854 

5.0 

14.0 

11.0 

8855 

4.5 

14.0 

7.0 

9251 

3.0 

14.0 

8.0 

9374 

3.0 

9.0 

17.0 

1249 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

1250 

3.9 

9.5 

10.0 

7642 

3.7 

13.0 

7.0 

845 

4.3 

9.0 

2.0 

538 

4.0 

14.2 

5.7 

539 

3.6 

14.0 

10.5 

8161 

3.2 

12.0 

10.0 

8162 

3.7 

14.0 

7.0 

8163 

3.5 

13.0 

10.0 

9247 

1.0 

8.0 

12.0 

7747 

4.0 

15.0 

6.0 

9204 

3.9 

14.2 

10.0 

9207 

3.0 

14.0 

10.0 

8121 

3.5 

14.5 

10.0 

. 8122 

3.5 

16.0 

5.5 

. 8677 

3.4 

14.9 

11.1 

. 7638 

3.0 

14.0 

10.0 

wheat  screenings 
Wheat  bran,  5%  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Wheat  middlings,  5%  ground  wheat 
screenings 


Wheat  bran 
Com,  oats 
Wheat  shorts 

Low  grade  wheat  flour  containing 
the  finer  particles  of  wheat  bran 
Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 


Wheat  bran,  shorts 
Wheat  shorts 


Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings, corn  bran 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  to  exceed  mill  run 
Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  to  exceed  mill  run 
Rye  middlings 

Barley  bran,  barley  middlings,  barley 
hulls,  ground  barley  screenings,  oat 
middlings,  oat  hulls 
Wheat  bran 
Corn,  oats 
Wheat  middlings 


Corn  product 


Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  bran,  whole  wheat  screenings 


Wheat  bran 
Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran 
Com  bran 


Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran, 
5%  ground  wheat  screenings 
Rye  bran,  rye  middlings,  mill  run 
ground  rye  screenings 


Wheat  bran 
Wheat  shorts 


Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
I wheat  screenings 


32  Succeeded  by  A.  G.  Walton 


67 

Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guara 

ntecd  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Waltz  & Company,  J.  W.,  New  Palestine,  Ind. 

New  Palestine  Wheat  Middlings > 

685 

2.0 

12.0 

5.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Mixed  Peed  

2923 

3.7 

13.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings, corn  bran 

Corn  feed  meal 

Corn  Peed  Meal 

3341 

3.0 

8.5 

6.0 

Washburn-Crosby  Company, 

Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Washburn-Crosby  Co’s  Rye  Middlings 

7018 

3.0 

14.0 

6.0 

Rye  middlings 

Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings  not 

Exceeding  Mill  Run  ___  

Wheat  Standard  Middlings  with  Ground 

7229 

4.0 

13.0 

13.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

Screenings  not  Exceeding  Mill  Run 

Wheat  Mixed  Peed  with  Ground  Screenings 

7230 

4.0 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

not  Exceeding  Mill  Run 

Wheat  Plour  Middlings  with  Ground  Screen- 

7231 

4.0 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings  not  exceeding  mill 
run 

ings  not  Exceeding  Mill  Run __ 

7232 

4.0 

16.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings,  reddog  flour, 
ground  wheat  screenings  not  exceed- 
ing mill  run 

Red  Dog  Plour  (Adrian)  

7233 

4.0 

16.0 

4.0 

Low  grade  wheat  flour  containing 
the  finer  particles  of  wheat  bran 

Corn  Peed  Meal 

9356 

5.0 

8.0 

10.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Waterloo  Mills,  Waterloo,  Ind. 

Buckwheat  Mixed  Peed 

1965 

4.0 

15.0 

20.0 

Buckwheat  hulls,  middlings 

Watson,  Gilf.  L.,  Redkey,  Ind. 

Mix  Peed  

7310 

3.5 

8.0 

10.5 

Corn,  oats,  rye 

Chop  Peed _ 

8187 

3.5 

9.0 

8.0 

Corn,  oats 

Weber  Milling  Company,  Brookville,  Ind. 

Mixed  Peed  

7890 

3.0 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran, 
ground  wheat  screenings 

Wellington  Milling  Company,  Anderson,  Ind. 

Wellington’s  A.  X.  A.  Bran  

4986 

3.0 

15.7 

11.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wellington’s  A.  X.  A.  Middlings 

4987 

4.0 

16.0 

6.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Wellington  A.  X.  A.  Mixed  Bran 

6225 

3.0 

14.0 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran 

Wellington  Milling  & Elevator  Company, 
Wellington,  Kansas 

Bran  

3257 

3.0 

13.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran 

Shorts  

3258 

4.0 

15.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Wells,  Guy  M.,  Knox,  Ind. 

Wells’  Chop  Peed  __  

6065 

3.2 

8.3 

9.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Wells^Abbott-Nieman  Company,  Schuyler,  Neb. 

Wheat  Bran  _ ___  _ __  ...  

6941 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  Shorts  - 

6042 

4.0 

16.0 

6.5 

Wheat  shorts 

Wheat  Middlings  

6943 

3.5 

15.0 

5.5 

Wheat  middlings 

Wells  Plour  Milling  Company,  Wells,  Minn. 

Peedwell  Germ  Middlings __  

3244 

8.0 

20.2 

3.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Peedwell  Plour  Middlings  _____  

4731 

5.5 

17.0 

5.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Feedwell  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings. 

8322 

3.0 

13.3 

11.2 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

Peedwell  Standard  Middlings  _ 

8323 

5.2 

15.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

( Western  Plour  Mill  Company,  Davenport,  Iowa 
Black  Hawk  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings 

not  to  Exceed  Mill  Run 

7895 

3.0 

13.3 

11.2 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Black  Hawk  Standard  Middlings 

7806 

5.2 

16.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  middlings 

Black  Hawk  Germ  Middlings 

7807 

10.0 

25.0 

3.5 

Black  Hawk  Plour  Middlings 

Western  Grain  Company,  Kansas  City,  Mo. 

7898 

3.5 

15.5 

4.5 

Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  Bran  & Screenings _ _ _ 

7000 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  fun 

68 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


■ 

Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Wheatland  Milling  Company,  Wheatland,  Ind. 

8664 

3.0 

10.0 

10.0  . 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  corn  bran, 

Whelan,  Omer  G.,  Richmond,  Ind. 

7155 

5.0 

11.9 

12.0 

ground  wheat  screenings,  mill  sweep- 
ings 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

7700 

2.5 

7.5 

5.0 

not  exceeding  mill  run 

Corn  feed  meal 

Whitelock  Mill  Company,  Petersburg,  Ind. 

8465 

3.0 

13.0 

11.5 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran, 

Wiedner  & Speck,  Pendleton,  Ind.33 

6308 

3.5 

9.0 

9.0 

corn  feed  meal,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Corn,  oats 

Wiegman  & Zelt,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.34 

5170 

3.2 

8.0 

10.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Wildcat  Roller  Mills,  Cutler,  Ind. 

1001 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

3208 

3.3 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wilkinson  & Company,  T.  B., 

Knightstown,  Ind. 

Middlings  - - - 

110 

3.5 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Bran  - 

120 

3.2 

12.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Chop  Feed  

3456 

3.3 

8.5 

10.0 

Com,  oats 

Mixed  Mill  Feed  

4518 

2.5 

12.0 

8.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran 

Williams  Milling  Company,  Williams,  Ind. 
Williams  Millin0-  Co’s  Mixed  Feed 

135 

3.9 

13.0 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 

Williamson  Milling  Company,  The, 

Clay  Center,  Kansas 

Wheat  Shorts  - - -- 

4487 

4.0 

17.0 

5.0 

wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

Wheat  shorts 

Wheat  Bran  

4655 

3.5 

15.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

White  Middlings  

4656 

4.5 

15.0 

6.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Wilmot  Flouring  Mill,  Wilmot,  Ind. 

Shorts  - 

4226 

3.0 

12.0 

8.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Wheat,  Bran  - 

6432 

3.0 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wiltrout,  Francis  M.,  Corunna,  Ind. 

Mixed  Fe^d  - - 

5847 

3.5 

9.0 

8.0 

Corn,  oats 

Winslow  Milling  Company,  Winslow,  Ind. 

Pikes  Mixed  Fppd  

0098 

3.0 

12.5 

12.1 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran, 
ground  wheat  screenings,  wheat 
scourings 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran, 
corn  feed  meal,  ground  wheat 
screenings,  ground  wheat  scourings 
Corn,  oats 

Pikes  “A”  Mixed  F^ed  _ 

9009 

3.0 

13.0 

11.0 

Pikes  Corn  and  Oats  Feed  

9100 

3.5 

9.0 

8.0 

Witmer  Grain  Company,  Grabill,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  - 

1679 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  Bran  

2940 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wolff  & Company,  Lee,  Lakeville,  Ind. 

Corn  and  Oats  Chop 

9252 

3.5 

9.0 

8.0 

Corn,  oats 

Woodbury-Elliott  Grain  Company,  Muncie,  Ind. 
Chop  Feed  - 

’ 4118 

3.0 

9.0 

8.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

Woolard,  C.,  Hagerstown,  R.  R.  20,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  - 

. 6716 

2.5 

14.0 

6.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  ground 

Mixed  Feed  - 

. 6747 

2.5 

13.5 

11.0 

wheat  screenings 

33  Succeeded  by  Baker  & Hodges 

34  Succeeded  by  Zelt  Bros. 


69 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Wright,  John  H.,  Clinton,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  ___  

7077 

3.5 

15.5 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Venus  Bran  & Screenings  

Wright  Milling  Company,  Paris  Crossing,  Ind. 

7250 

3.5 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  unground 
wheat  screenings  not  to  exceed  mill 
run 

“A"  Mixed  Feed _ 

2508 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

Corn  Bran  

2849 

4.0 

7.0 

11.0 

Corn  bran 

Corn  Feed  Meal  

6235 

2.0 

7.0 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

Yaw  Bros.,  Terre  Haute,  Ind.. 

Com  Bran  

6490 

4.8 

8.0 

13.0 

Com  bran 

Yerxa,  Andrews  & Thurston,  Inc., 

Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Flour  Middlings  _ 

6515 

5.5 

16.5 

6.5 

Wheat  middlings 

Bran  . _ ______ 

6616 

5.5 

12.0 

13.0 

Wheat  bran 

Nokomos  Durum  Wheat  Middlings 

6055 

5.5 

14.5 

10.5 

Wheat  middlings 

Hector  Durum  Wheat  Red  Dog  __  _ 

6956 

5.0 

18.0 

3.0 

Wheat  reddog  flour 

Golden  Durum  Wheat  Mixed  Feed 

6967 

5.5 

15.5 

8.5 

Pure  durum  wheat  bran,  pure  durum 
wheat  reddog  flour 

Yoder,  Marion  J.,  Middlebury,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  and  Ground  Wheat  Screen- 

ings   _ 

8783 

3.7 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run 

Wheat  Bran  & Ground  Wheat  Screenings 

8784 

3.7 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

Yohn,  W.  B.,  North  Webster,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  _ 

6836 

3.5 

13.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  Middlings  

6837 

3.5 

13.5 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Yorktown  Lumber  Company,  Yorktown,  Ind. 

Corn  Bran 

6630 

3.0 

9.0 

11.0 

Corn  bran 

Yost,  W.  H.,  South  Bend,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

2927 

3.5 

9.0 

8.0 

Com,  oats 

Youngscreek  Milling  Company, 

Youngscreek,  Ind. 

Youngscreek  Mixed  Feed  

7127 

2.5 

12.5 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

Zabel  & Son,  New  Albany,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  _ 

9041 

2.5 

14.0 

6.5 

Wheat  middlings 

Zabel  & Son’s  Mixed  Feed  _ __ 

9042 

3.0 

13.5 

11.0 

Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

Zehner,  J.  A.,  Plymouth.  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  __  _ 

6449 

3.0 

13.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Zehner  Milling  Company,  Plymouth,  Ind.35 

Wheat  Middlings 

1429 

4.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings 

Corn  & Oats  Chop  __  

1430 

3.9 

9.5 

6.0 

Corn,  oats 

Wheat  Bran  

1431 

3.8 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran 

Corn  Bran 

4205 

2.5 

6.0 

15.0 

Corn  bran 

Zelt  Brothers,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

9183 

3.2 

8.0 

10.0 

Corn,  oats 

Zenith  Milling  Company,  Kansas  City,  Mo. 

Wheat  Shorts  

7372 

3.5 

16.0 

9.0 

Wheat  shorts 

Wheat  Bran  & Screenings  not  Exceeding 

Mill  Run 

7373 

3.2 

15.0 

13.5 

Wheat  bran,  whole  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run 

Ziliak  & Schafer  Milling  Company, 

Haubstadt,  Ind. 

Ziliak’s  Mixed  Feed 

276 

3.7 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  middlings, 
crushed  wheat  screenings 

Middlings  __ 

4059 

3.5 

14.5 

9.0 

Wheat  middlings 

85  Succeeded  by  Plymouth  Roller  Flour  Mills 


70 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


' 

Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Ziliak  & Schafer  Milling  Company, 

Haubstadt,  Ind. 

6857 

2.5 

7.5 

5.0 

Corn  feed  meal 

7215 

4.5 

16.5 

10.0 

Wheat  shorts,  ground  wheat  screen- 

Wheat Shorts,  Screening,  Corn  Bran  and 

8291 

4.5 

16.5 

10.0 

ings 

Wheat  shorts,  ground  wheat  screen- 

8292 

3.7 

14.0 

10.0 

ings,  corn  bran,  corn  feed  meal 
Wheat  bran,  shorts,  corn  bran,  corn 

8597 

4.0 

14.0 

10.0 

feed  meal,  ground  wheat  screenings 
Wheat  bran,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Zionsville  Milling  Company,  Zionsville,  Ind. 

4298 

3.0 

14.0 

7.0 

Wheat  shorts 

4783 

3.0 

13.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  ground 

Zook  Bros.,  Logansport,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

4358 

3.5 

9.0 

9.5 

wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

Corn,  oats 

MISCELLANEOUS  CHOP  FEED,  CQN- 
TAINING  CORN  AND  COB  MEAL 
(CRUSHED  EAR  CORN) 

Daily,  C.  C.,  Bristol,  R.  R.  5,  Ind. 

Bonnpyv'llo  Nn,  9 Chop  Feed 

5502 

2.5 

7.3 

14.0 

Corn  and  cob  meal  (crushed  ear 

Loogootee  Milling  Conipany,  The, 

Loogootee,  Ind. 

Standard  MiVed  Feed 

3146 

3.5 

10.0 

19.0 

corn)  oats,  corn  bran 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  ground 

Millersville  Feed  Mill,  Millersville,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed 

3823 

2.5 

8.0 

10.0 

wheat  screenings,  oats,  corn  and  cob 
meal  (crushed  ear  corn) 

Corn  and  cob  meal  (ground  ear  corn) 

Milner  & Sons,  Darlington,  Ind. 

Chopped  Feed 

3231 

3.0 

9.0 

10.0 

oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed  meal 

Corn  and  cob  meal  (ear  corn)  oats, 

Ogl&Cook  Grain  Company,  Hamlet,  Ind. 

Fermnmy  Feed 

8557 

3.5 

8.0 

18.0 

rye,  corn  bran 

Corn  and  cob  meal  (crushed  ear  corn) 

r«  ; 

0.  K.  Livery  & Feed  Company, 

South  Bend,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

5670 

2.8 

8.5 

10.0 

oats 

Corn  and  cob  meal  (ground  ear  corn) 
oats 

Pancost  Milling  Company,  Elkhart,  Ind. 

Fermmny  Chop  Feed 

9019 

3.0 

8.0 

20.0 

Oats,  corn  and  cob  meal  (crushed  ear 

Reeve  & Son,  G.  E.,  Washington,  Ind. 

M'd  Clhnp  Feed 

8493 

3.0 

9.0 

10.0 

corn)  wheat  middlings,  wheat  bran, 
corn  feed  meal 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran,  corn  and  cob 

Ruoff,  Geo.  D.,  Osgood,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed 

2870 

3.5 

9.5 

10.0 

meal  (crushed  ear  corn) 

Corn  and  cob  meal  (ground  ear  corn) 

Sheward  & Company,  B.  F.,  Rochester,  Ind. 

Shawflrd’p  Chop  Feed 

8312 

2.5 

7.5 

8.0 

wheat  bran 

Corn  and  cob  meal  (crushed  ear  conP 

Walker  & Company,  Peter  M.,  Loogootee,  Ind. 
Mixed  Feed  

Zook  Bros.,  Logansport,  Ind. 

No,  2 Chop  Feed 

3136 

4993 

3.5 

2.8 

10.0 

7.0 

10.0 

13.0 

oats 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran, 
corn  and  cob  meal,  oats 

Corn  and  cob  meal  (crushed  ear  corn) 
oats,  corn  bran,  com  feed  meal 

MISCELLANEOUS  CHOP  FEED  CON- 
TAINING COB  MEAL,  OAT  HULLS, 
WHEAT  SCREENINGS  OR  OTHER 
FILLER 

1 

Acme-Evans  Company,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

F-Z  C!hr>p  Feed 

5635 

3.3 

8.4 

11.0 

Corn,  oats,  oat  hulls,  salt 

Acme  C.  O.  & B.  Chop 

. 6200 

4.0 

8.0 

7.0 

Corn,  oats,  barley,  oat  hulls 

7 1 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 


ft  O 


g £ i 
a & < 


and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Acme  Grain  Company,  North  Manchester,  Ind. 
Chop  Feed  


6.0  Com,  oats,  ground  wheat  screenings 


Akron  Milling  Company,  The,  Akron,  Ind. 
Mixed  Chop  Feed 

Amo  Mill  & Elevator  Company, 

Bargersville,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

Ashbrook  Company,  The  J.  S.,  Mattoon,  111. 
Egyption  Mixed  Feed  

Badenoch  Company,  J.  J.,  Chicago,  111. 
Badenoch’s  C.  & O.  Chop 


7510 


8381 

8057 

8762 


Belt  Elevator  & Feed  Company, 
Indianapolis,  Ind. 

“A”  Chop  Feed 


'3978 


Brown,  W.  W.,  Goshen,  Ind. 
Favorite  Feed  


2596 


2.5  8.0  8.0  Corn,  oats,  rye,  corn  bran,  ground 

wheat  screenings,  mill  sweepings 


3.0  9.0  16.0  Corn,  oats,  whole  and  shrivelled 

wheat,  weed  seeds,  cob  meal,  chaff, 
whole  wheat  screenings 

2.0  8.0  12.0  Corn,  oats,  oat  middlings,  oat 

shorts,  oat  hulls 


3.0 


8.0 


12.0 


Hominy  feed,  corn  feed  meal,  oat 
middlings,  oat  shorts,  oat  hulls, 
salt 


3.0  7.5 


16.0 


Com,  oat  bran,  oat  middlings,  oat 
hulls,  corn  feed  meal 


3.5  8.0  18.0 


Com,  oats,  cob  meal 


Canal  Elevator  Company,  Peru,  Ind. 
Chop  Feed  


9.0  Corn,  oats,  ground  corn  screenings 


City  Mills,  South  Whitley,  Ind. 

Scrap  Feed  

Clinton  Grain  Company,  Frankfort,  Ind. 
Chop  Feed  

Colfax  Grain  Company,  Colfax,  Ind. 
Chop  Feed  

Daugherty,  S.  P.,  Edwardsburg,  Mich. 

S.  P.  Daugherty’s  Chop  Feed 


8027 

9061 

3108 

6492 


2.5 

2.5 

2.0 

3.3 


8.0 

8.5 

7.0 

8.7 


9.5 

10.0 

16.0 

10.0 


Corn,  oats,  com  bran,  com  feed 
meal,  ground  wheat  screenings,  mill 
sweepings 

Corn,  oats,  com  feed  meal,  ground 
screenings  from  wheat,  com,  rye 
and  oats 

Corn,  oats,  ground  screenings  from 
wheat,  corn  and  oats 

Com,  oats,  cob  meal 


Dickinson  Company,  The  Albert,  Chicago,  111. 
Rival  Chop  Feed  


8132 


Fairplay  Feed  Mills,  Linton,  Ind. 

Winner  Chop  

Farmland  City  Flour  Mills,  Farmland,  Ind. 
Chop  Feed  

Friedrich  & Son,  C.  W.,  Dyer,  Ind. 
Friedrich’s  Chop  Feed  

Goodrich  Bros.  Hay  & Grain  Company, 
Winchester,  Ind. 

“Climax  Chop” 

Hamlet  Grain  Company,  The,  Hamlet,  Ind. 
Chop  Feed  j 

Hammel  Milling  Company,  Fremont,  Ind. 
Chop  Feed  

Hutchinson  Flour  Mills  Company, 
Hutchinson,  Kansas 

Hutchinson  Chop  Feed 

International  Sugar  Feed  Company, 
Minneapolis,  Minn. 

International  Chop  Feed 


7714 

3703 

2714 

0010 

7914 

4048 

7837 

7185 


3.0  9.0 


13.0 


Corn,  oat  shorts,  oat  hulls 


3.0 


7.0 


12.0 


Corn,  oats,  com  feed  meal,  oat 
shorts,  oat  groats,  oat  hulls,  salt 


2.0 

3.0 


7.0 

9.0 


11.0  Wheat  bran,  corn,  oats,  oat  bran, 

oat  middlings,  oat  hulls,  corn  feed 
meal 

13.0  Corn,  oats,  cob  meal 


3.5  9.5  6.0  Wheat,  corn,  oats,  rye,  corn  feed 

meal,  ground  screenings  from 
wheat,  corn,  oats  and  rye 

3.5  9.0  9.5  Corn,  oats,  ground  screenings  from 

wheat  and  corn 

2.5  9.0  9.0  Com,  oats,  whole  wheat  screenings, 

corn  feed  meal 


3.5 


9.0 


4.0 


Corn,  whole  wheat  screenings 


4.0  10.5 


16.0 


Corn,  barley,  ground  screenings  from 
wheat,  oats,  barley  and  flax,  oat 
middlings,  oat  shorts,  oat  hulls 


72 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

s 

« e 

9 

LABEL 

£ 

cl 

£ 

1.1 

£ Ss 

® .ja 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 

oj  +>  ci 
01  C'H 

Sea 

Sh  -M  77- 
O 

following  ingredients 

'3 

€ 

.2  8.2 
o & g 

.2  8® 
-P  . 'O 
O 3 

o b g 

O 

Hr  J U 
ft  O 

Hr  2 ^ 

Z ft  o 

P-7  ® P 

ft  o 

Killian  Elevator,  The,  Newberry,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

8140 

2.8 

8.7 

8.0 

Klondike  Milling  Company,  Danville,  Ind. 
Cracked  Corn  & Screenings _ 

4009 

2.5 

7.5 

7.0 

Lash  Flour  Mills,  Fred  B.,  Farmersburg,  Ind. 
Chop  Feed  

1780 

3.5 

11.0 

5.0 

Lewis  Milling  Company,  Lewis,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

7023  • 

3.5 

11.0 

5.0 

Maegerlein,  E.  S.,  Patricksburg,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

8102 

3.2 

9.0 

7.0 

Maegerlein  Roller  Mills,  Arthur,  Clay  City,  Ind. 
Chop  Feed 

3800 

3.2 

9.0 

9.0 

McMillen  & Son,  J.  W.,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.36 
Eagle  Brand  Chop  Feed 

8138 

2.5 

7.5 

8.0 

Noragon  & Sons,  Butler,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

6275 

2.8 

8.5 

7.0 

Pendleton  Feed  & Fuel  Company, 

Pendleton,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

1477 

3.0 

10.0 

6.0 

Prairie  State  Milling  Company,  Chicago,  111. 
Prairie  State  Chop  Feed 

7727 

2.5 

8.0 

11.0 

Prater-Mottier  Company,  Terre  Haute,  Ind. 
Praters  Chop  Feed  

7585 

3.0 

10.0 

15.0 

Probst  & Kassebaum,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Special  C.  0.  & B.  Chop 

8444 

4.0 

8.0 

7.0 

Sage,  L.  L.,  Adamsville,  Mich. 

L.  L.  Sages  Chop  Feed __ 

4620 

3.4 

9.0 

12.0 

Smock  & Caca,  Noblesville,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed 

2633 

3.7 

9.2 

8.0 

Walker,  H.  L.,  Montpelier,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

8130 

3.5 

8.0 

9.0 

CHOP  FEEDS  CONTAINING  CORN  BRAN 

Akron  Milling  Company,  The,  Akron,  Ind. 
Akron  Chop  _ _ 

2794 

3.5 

9.0 

8.0 

Albion  Roller  Mills,  Albion,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

8609 

3.5 

9.0 

8.0 

Anderson  Bros.,  Huntington,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

5460 

3.0 

8.0 

12.0 

Angola  Flouring  Mills,  Angola,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

7241 

3.0 

9.0 

8.0 

Ashley-Hudson  Milling  & Grain  Company, 
Ashley,  Ind.37 

Ashley-Hudson  Chop  Feed  

3783 

3.5 

9.5 

8.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Corn,  wholev  wheat  screenings 
Corn,  oats,  ground  wheat  screenings 
Com,  oats,  ground  wheat  screenings 


Corn,  oats,  ground  whqat  screenings 


Corn,  oats,  ground  wheat  screenings 


Oats,  com  feed  meal,  corn  screenings 


Corn,  oats,  ground  wheat  screenings, 
corn  feed  meal 


Corn,  oats,  wheat  screenings 


Com,  oats,  barley,  corn  feed  meal, 
ground  barley  screenings,  ground 
oat  hulls 

Corn,  oats,  wheat  bran,  corn  feed 
meal,  alfalfa  meal,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Corn,  oats,  barley,  oat  hulls 


Corn,  oats,  cob  meal 


Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  cob  meal 


Corn,  oats,  ground  wheat  screenings 


Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  whole  wheat 
screenings 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  wheat  bran, 
ground  wheat  screenings  not  exceed- 
ing mill  run 

Com,  oats,  corn  feed  meal,  corn 
bran 

Com,  oats,  rye,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 


Corn,  oats,  corn  bran 


36  Succeeded  by  The  McMillen  Co. 

37  Succeeded  by  Kirlin  & Hammond 


73 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


LABEL 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


a 

eS 

ia 

"*■*  . 
m -n>  cD 
M C«H 

2 | 2 
ft  o 


l.f 


TJ 

o Si  3 
ft  V 


a 

c8 

g+sa 

o C«H 

^ I w 


and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Bainbridge  Mill  & Elevator  Company 
Bainbridge,  Ind. 

Chop  Eeed  


Berlein  Mills,  Angola,  R.  R.  2,  Ind 
Chop  Eeed  


Besser,  W.  T.,  Greencastle,  Ind. 
Besser’s  Chop  Eeed 


Bicknell  Mill  Company,  Bicknell,  Ind 
Chop  Eeed  


Blackmore,  D.  M.,  Greensburg,  Ind 
Blackmore’s  Chop  Eeed 


Blackwell,  R.  A.,  Hamlet,  Ind. 
Chop  Eeed  


Bluffton  Milling  Company,  Bluffton,  Ind 
Chop  Eeed  


Boldt  & Son,  Waynetown,  Ind. 
Chop  Feed  


Bristol  Milling  Company,  Bristol  Ind 
“Chop  Feed”  


Broad  Ripple  Flour  & Eeed  Mills 
Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Chop  Eeed  


Brooks  & Son,  L.,  Vincennes,  Ind  38 
New  Chop  Feed  


Chop  Eeed 


Burrell  & Morgan,  Elkhart,  Ind. 
Burrell  &.  Morgan’s  Chop  Feed 

Butler  Milling  Company,  Butler,  Ind. 
Chop  Eeed  


City  Feed  Store,  Plymouth,  Ind. 
Plymouth  Chop  Eeed 


City  Milling  Company,  Kendallville,  Ind. 
Chop  Eeed  


CcSpDP6ed  n.g..°?.mB“y’  °,a5,t0n'  Ind' 


Clover  Leaf  Flour  Mills,  Kokomo,  Ind 
Clover  Leaf  Chop  Eeed l__ 


CChopeEe^lling  Company>  Collamer,  Ind. 


0ocho1  *_ ?°°k-  Nappanee- Ind- 


Coppock  Cyrus  L.,  Jonesboro,  Ind  40 
Coppock’s  Chop  Eeed 


1 Q A 

0.4 

O Q 

8.3 

ll.l 

Z .0 

4.1 

8.7 

9.( 

XU.  0 

7.1 

3.5 

9.0 

8.C 

3.5 

9.0 

7.5 

2.8 

8.7 

8.0 

3.0 

9.0 

8.0 

. 7926 

2.8 

8.7 

8.0 

. 7417 

3.0 

9.0 

7.0 

. 8065 

2.8 

8.7 

8.0 

. 4407 

4.0 

9.0 

7.5 

7341 

3.0 

9.0 

8.0 

5836 

3.0 

8.0 

10.0 

6940 

3.0 

8.7 

7.0 

7542 

3.0 

8.7 

7.0 

7339 

3.0 

8.7 

7.0 

7663 

3.0 

9.0 

9.0 

4448 

3.0 

7.9 

11.0 

7057 

3.0 

9.0 

7.0 

6009 

3.0 

8.0 

9.0 

6086 

3.0 

9.0 

9.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Corn,  oats,  rye,  corn  bran,  corn 
feed  meal 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran 


Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  com  feed 
meal 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Corn  oats,  rye,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 


Com,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Corn,  oats,  com  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Com,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 


Succeeded  by  U.  G.  McCoy  & Co. 

“c„cee^  by  Thomas  Milling  Co. 
Succeeded  by  L.  A.  Shields 


Com,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  com  feed 
meal 

Cmeal  °atS’  fye’  C°rn  bran»  corn  fee(i 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Corn,  oats,  com  bran,  com  feed 
meal 

Corn,  oats,  com  bran,  corn  feed 
meal,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Com,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Com,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Corn,  oats,  wheat,  rye,  corn  bran 
corn  feed  meal  ’ 


74 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 

Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 


Crawford,  J.  C.,  Gas  City,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

Creitz  & Deardoff,  Centerville,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

Cronk  & Cronk,  Shirley,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

Darlington  Feed  Mill,  Darlington,  Ind. 

Chop  Peed  

De  Armitt,  James  B.,  Huntington,  Ind. 

Chop  Peed  

Delp  Grain  Company,  E.  E.,  Bourbon,  Ind. 
Chop  Peed  

Dotson  & Sons,  Chas.,  Parker,  Ind. 

Chop  Peed  

Farmers  Elevator  Company,  Kempton,  Ind. 
Chop  Peed  

Parmers  Grain  & Milling  Company, 

Union  City,  Ind. 

Chop  Peed  

Farmers  Milling  & Elevator  Company, 
Veedersburg,  Ind. 

No.  1 Chop  Peed „ — : — 

F inkle,  Jacob,  Warren,  Ind. 

Chop  Peed  

Fornax  Milling  Company,  Decatur,  Ind. 
Fornax  Chop  Peed T ----- 

French,  Hubert,  Linn  Grove,  Ind. 

French  Chop  Feed._^~ — — -— 

Perfecto  Chop  Peed — 

Purr  & Cohee,  Bunker  Hill,  Ind. 

Chop  Peed  

Fyke  Milling  Company,  LaGrange,  Ind. 
Fyke’s  Chop  Peed  

Garrett  & Punk,  Liberty  Center,  Ind. 

Chop  Peed  

Gas  City  Elevator  Co.,  Gas  City,  Ind. 

Chop  Peed  

Gaston  Roller  Mill,  Gaston,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

Geneva  Milling  & Grain  Company, 

Geneva,  Ind. 

Egly’s  Chop  Peed . 

S.  B.  Gilman,  Summitville,  Ind. 

Gilman’s  .Corn  and.  Oats  Chop tv,- 

Glen  Echo  Mills,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Three  In  One  


z+ia 

O 

° <D  £ 

£ a « 


6826 

7703 

5798 

6043 

4635 

0550 

5063 

7639 

8261 

5597 

7661 

8402 

5723 

8441 

. 6408 

. 2134 

. 5122 
. 7908 

. 5510 

. 6740 
. 2444 
_ 5012 


3.0 

3.3 

2.8 

3.0 

3.0 

-3.0 

2.8 

2.8 

2.8 

3.5 

3.9 

3.0 

2.9 
3.5 

3.0 

3.5 

2.7 

3.0 

3.0 

2.8 

3.5 

4.0 


9.0  : 

9.0 

8.7 

8.7 

9.0 

9.0 
8.7 

8.0 

8.7 

9.0 

9.5 

9.0 

8.4 
9.0 

8.5 

9.5 

8.5 

9.0 

8.7 

8.7 

9.0 

10.0 


10.0 

12.0 

8.0 

8.0 

10.0 

7.0 

7.0 

12.0 

9.0 

8.0 

6.0 

8.0 

10.0 

6.0 

9.0 

10.0 

14.0 

9.0 

9.0 

8.0 

6.0 
i 12.0 


and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Corn,  oats,  rye,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran 


Com,  oats,  rye,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Wheat,  corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn 
feed  meal 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Com,  oats,  com  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Corn,  oats,  rye,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Com,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 


Com,  oats,  corn  feed  meal,  corn 
bran,  ground  screenings  from  wheat 
and  corn 

Com,  oats,  corn  bran,  whole  wheat 
screenings 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal,  corn 
bran 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Corn,  oats,  rye,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Com,  oats,  com  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal,  ground 
com  screenings,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Cofn,  oats,  corn  bran 


Com,  oats,  corn  bran 


Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Com,  oats,  rye,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran 

Oats,  wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings, 
hominy  feed,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal ' 


75 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Gnagy,  G.  L.,  Hamilton,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  ---  _ 

5434 

2.8 

8.5 

9.0 

Com,  oats,  rye,  corn  bran,  com  feed 

Graft,  C.  V.,  Winchester,  Ind. 

Chop  Peed  

6456 

3.5 

8.5 

8.0 

meal 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 

Graft’s  Chop  Peed _ 

8166 

3.5 

8.5 

8.0 

meal 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal,  com  bran 

Grant  & Wyeth,  Lebanon,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  - 

8862 

3.0 

9.0 

9.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  com  feed 

Greenfield  Milling  Company,  Greenfield,  Ind. 
Chop  Peed 

5141 

2.0 

6.0 

15.0 

meal 

Oats,  corn  bran 

Harris  Milling  Company,  Greencastle,  Ind. 
Harris’  Chop  Peed 

210 

4.1 

10.3 

7.7 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran 

Harting  & Company,  Elwood,  Ind. 

Harting’s  Chop  Peed 

5253 

3.5 

9.0 

6.0 

Corn,  oats,  rye,  com  bran,  com  feed 

Heavilin  & Company,  Marion,  Ind.41 

Chop  Peed  

7411 

2.5 

7.'0 

11.0 

meal 

Oats,  corn  and  cob  meal  (crashed  ear 

Hollett-Winders  Grain  Company,  The, 

Arcadia,  Ind. 

Chop  Peed  

5780 

3.0 

9.0 

8.0 

corn)  corn  bran,  corn  feed  meal 

Com,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 

Hollingsworth,  S.  P.,  Russiaville,  Ind. 
Hollingsworth’s  Chop  Peed 

8661 

3.9 

9.0 

9.0 

meal 

Cora,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 

Holser  & Company,  B.  I.,  Walkerton,  Ind. 

Chop  __  

4122 

3.5 

9.0 

9.5 

meal 

Corn,  oats,  com  bran 

Hornung,  J.  M.,  Greensburg,  Ind. 

Chop  Peed  

2576 

4.8 

10.0 

11.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran 

Huntington  Mill  Company,  Huntington,  Ind. 
“Chop  Peed”  

8586 

2.7 

8.5 

9.0 

Corh,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 

Iroquois  Roller  Mills,  Rensselaer,  Ind. 

Chop  Peed 

5088 

3.5 

9.0 

10.0 

meal 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  com  feed 

Mixed  Chop  Peed 

6508 

2.0 

7.5 

15.0 

meal 

Corn,  corn  bran,  com  feed  meal,  oat 

Jackson  & Smith,  Roanoke,  Ind. 

Roanoke  Chop  Peed . 

5699 

3.6 

8.0 

10.0 

middlings,  oat  shorts,  oat  hulls, 
ground  wheat  screenings 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  com  feed 
meal 

Corn,  oats,  com  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  com  feed 

J Street  Milling  Company,  LaPorte,  Ind. 

Chop  Peed  

9254 

2.8 

8.7 

9.0 

Jenkins  & Cohee,  Whitestown,  Ind.42 

Chop  Peed  ..  ___  

6880 

3.0 

8.7 

10.0 

Jones  & Son,  Charles  N.,  Wabash,  Ind. 

Chop  Peed  

5067 

3.5 

9.0 

6.0 

meal 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran 

“A”  Chop  Peed 

5191 

3.0 

9.0 

9.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  com  feed 

Jonesboro  Milling  Company,  Jonesboro,  Ind. 
Chop  Peed 

7999 

2.8 

8.7 

7.0 

meal 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 

Kiest  Milling  Company,  Knox,  Ind. 

Chop  Peed  . __ 

7970 

3.0 

9.0 

6.0 

meal 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 

Kingman  Grain  & Milling  Company, 

Kingman,  Ind. 

Victor  Chop  Peed 

3010 

3.2 

9.0 

9.0 

meal 

Corn,  oats,  ground  wheat  screenings. 

corn  bran 

41  Succeeded  by  Heavilin  Milling  & Coal  Co. 

42  Succeeded  by  Kern  & Kirtley  Grain  Co. 


76 

Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Knecht  Milling’  Company,  Hartford  City,  Ind. 
Chop  Feed  

9018 

2.0 

8.0 

10.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 

Kuhn  & Son,  J.  H.,  Michigan  City,  Ind. 

A.  Chop  Feed 

8488 

3.5 

8.5 

10.0 

meal 

Oats,  corn  bran,  ,corn  feed  meal 

LaPorte  Milling  Company,  LaPorte,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

0987 

3.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 

Leach  & Company,  E.  R.,  Sullivan,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

1156 

’ 4.3 

10.3 

5.8 

meal 

Corn,  oats,  wheat  bran,  corn  bran 

Lefforge,  Otto,  Rossville,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

7932 

3.0 

8.0 

10.0 

Com,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 

Lemon  Milling  Company,  The,  Bedford,  Ind. 
Chop  Feed  

6804 

3.0 

8.5 

9.0 

meal 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 

Little  Crow  Milling  Company,  Warsaw,  Ind. 
Little  Crow  Mixed  Chop  Feed  ..  

54)54 

3.0 

9.0 

9.0 

meal,  ground  corn  screenings 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 

Majot  & Morgan,  Michigan  City,  R.  R.  1,  Ind. 
Chop  Feed  

8039 

2.8 

8.5 

9.0 

meal 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 

Martin,  John  D.,  Lafayette,  Tnd. 

Duree  Chop  Feed 

3889 

3.5 

9.5 

8.0 

meal 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran 

Matthews  Roller  Mills,  Matthews,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

3613 

3.0 

9.0 

8.0 

Com,  oats,  corn  bran 

Moore’s  Chop  Feed 

6660 

2.8 

8.7 

7.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 

Maumee  Valley  Mills,  New  Haven,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

4382 

3.5 

9.0 

6.0 

meal 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 

Mexico  Roller  Mills,  Mexico,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  No.  1 

5052 

3.2 

8.5 

9.0 

meal 

Corn,  oats,  wheat  bran,  corn  bran, 

Middlebury  Milling  Company,  Middlebury,  Ind. 
Chop  Feed  

5437 

3.0 

9.0 

9.0 

corn  feed  meal,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 

Milford  Grain  & Milling  Company, 

Milford,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  ». 

6628 

2.8 

8.7 

8.0 

meal 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 

Monroe  Grain,  Hay  & Milling  Company, 
Monroe,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

3406 

3.0 

8.0 

9.0 

meal,  ground  corn  screenings 

Corn,  oats,  com  bran,  corn  feed 

Morgan,  Rees  J.,  Mexico,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

8213 

3.0 

9.0 

8.0 

meal 

Com,  oats,  com  bran 

Mulberry  Coal  & Feed  Company, 

Mulberry,  Ind. 

Mulberry  Chop  Feed  

5985 

3.5 

9.0 

7.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran 

Myers  & Son,  Joseph  H.,  Chili,  Ind.43 

Myers’  Chop  Feed 

0600 

3.0 

9.0 

8.0 

Com,  oats,  wheat,  rye,  corn  bran. 

McCormick  & Son,  Chas.  W.,  Logansport,  Ind. 
A.  Chop  Feed 

4060 

3.5 

9.0 

10.0 

corn  feed  meal,  ground  wheat 
screenings 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 

McCoy  Elevator,  R.  A.,  Greensburg,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

8466 

3.5 

9.0 

7.5 

Corn,  oats,  com  bran,  corn  feed 

Naber  & Company,  Chas.  F.,  Alexandria,  Ind. 
Nabers  Chop  

7196 

2.5 

8.0 

7.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 

meal 

43  Succeeded  by  J.  L.  & J.  M.  Myers 


// 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

National  Mills,  Angola,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  -- 

Nichols  & Company,  C.  E.,  Lowell,  Ind. 

7360 

2.8 

8.7 

8.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Ground  Feed  

Niezer  & Company,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind. 

6398 

3.5 

9.0 

9.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal,  corn  flour 

Niezer’s  Chop  Feed - . 

Nodine,  W.  J.,  Waterloo,  Ind. 

6269 

2.8 

8.7 

7.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Nodine’s  Chop  

Norwood  & Smithson,  Lebanon,  Ind.44 

7723 

2.4 

8.3 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal,  mill  sweepings 

Chop  Feed ___  — . _ 

Oxford  Feed  Mill,  Oxford,  Ind. 

6923 

3.0 

8.5 

7.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Deed’s  “Chop  Feed” - 

Pancost  Milling  Company,  Elkhart,  Ind. 

4900 

3.0 

9.0 

9.0 

Com,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

“Pancost’s”  Chop  Feed 

Pearson,  W.  W.,  Upland,  Ind. 

7400 

3.0 

8.0 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  rye,  wheat,  corn  bran, 
corn  feed  meal 

Chop  Feed _ _ - - -- 

Pennville  Milling  Company,  Pennville,  Ind. 

5962 

2.5 

8.0 

9.0 

Corn,  oafs,  rye,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Chop  Feed  

Phillips,  J.  C.,  Star  City,  Ind. 

3546 

3.0 

9.0 

9.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran 

Chop  Feed  _ __  __  . __  

Porter,  Robert,  Cicero,  Ind. 

7507 

2.8 

8.7 

8.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Chop  Feed  „ __  . 

Portland  Equity  Exchange,  The,  Portland,  Ind. 

6882 

3.0 

9.0 

8.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Equity  Chop  Feed 

Radcliff  Flour  & Feed  Exchange,  E.  M., 
Pierceton,  Ind. 

9240 

2.8 

8.7 

9.0 

Corn,  oats,  rye,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

A.  Chop  Feed 

Ray  & Rice,  Camden,  Ind. 

7732 

3.0 

9.0 

10.0 

Corn,  oats,  rye,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Chop  Feed  _ ...  

2372 

3.9 

9.3 

8.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran 

“A”  Chop  Feed 

Rittenhouse,  E.  S.,  Liberty  Mills,  Ind. 

4762 

3.5 

9.0 

10.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Liberty  Bird  Chop  Feed 

Riverside  Milling  Company,  Wolcottville,  Ind. 

5645- 

2.5 

7.5 

10.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Chop  Feed . . ___  _ __  _ 

Rochester  Roller  Mills,  Rochester,  Ind. 

7846 

3.0 

8.5 

9.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Chop  Feed 

Roper  & Brown,  Hobart,  Ind. 

5692 

3.0 

8.7 

8.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Hobart  No.  1 Chop  Feed  _ _ 

Rouch,  W.  E.,  Mishawaka,  Ind. 

5994 

3.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Chop  Feed  

Schaefer,  Karl  H.,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Schaefer’s  Special  Chop  Feed 

Schilt,  W.  F.,  Bremen,  Ind. 

8225 

3.5 

9.0 

7.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

7190 

3.0 

8.0 

10.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Chop  ...  .. 

Scientific  Milling  Company,  Marion,  Ind. 

8989 

3.9 

9.5 

6.0 

Corn,  oats,  rye,  wheat  and  corn  bran 

Scientific  Chop  Feed 

8571 

3.0 

8.5 

9.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

44  Succeeded  by  G.’  W.  Norwood 


78 

Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Sheridan  Milling  Company,  Sheridan,  Ind.45 
Chop  Feed  

5964 

2.7 

9.0 

8.0 

Corn,  oats,  com  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Shirley  & Jones,  Lebanon,  Ind. 

8126 

3.0 

8.5 

9.0 

Corn,  oats,  com  bran,  corn  feed 

meal 

Smith  & Company,  A.,  Sheridan,  Ind. 

6264 

3.0 

8.8 

7.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 

meal 

Smith  Company,  C.  E.,  Wabash,  Ind.46 

5300 

3.0 

9.0 

9.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 

meal 

Smock  & Caca,  Noblesville,  Ind. 

4488 

3.5 

9.0 

9.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  com  feed 

meal,  cob  meal 

South  Side  Cereal  Mills,  Eort  Wayne,  Ind. 

6250 

3.5 

9.0 

9.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 

meal 

South  Side  Feed  Store,  Peru,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

7530 

2.8 

8.8 

7.0 

Corn,  oats,  com  bran,  com  feed 
meal 

South  Whitley  Mills,  South  Whitley,  Ind. 

P.hnn  — 

2141 

3.5 

9.0 

11.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran 

Starr  Mills,  South  Bend,  Ind. 

6002 

3.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Corn,  oats,  rye,  wheat  middlings, 

corn  bran,  corn  feed  meal 

St.  Joe  Milling  Company,  St.  Joe,  Ind. 

TZ/~»ciV»f »a  Fppd  

5842 

3.0 

8.5 

9.0 

Com,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 

liObllt  o vIJUp  -E  ecu 

meal 

Stone  Quarry  Mills,  Spiceland,  Ind. 
rihnn  - 

3996 

2.7 

8.0 

10.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 

meal 

Strauss  & Son,  J.  W.,  North  Manchester,  Ind. 

Phnn  Fpprl  

8084 

3.0 

8.5 

10.0 

Com,  oats,  com  bran,  com  feed 

meal 

Studler  Bros.,  Linn  Grove,  Ind. 

2452 

3.9 

8.2 

10.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran 

Sturgeon  Grain  & Coal  Company,  Muncie,  Ind. 

7223 

3.5 

8.8 

8.0 

Com,  oats,  corn  bran,  com  feed 

viiuy  jj  cwci  

meal 

Swayzee  Milling  Company,  Swayzee,  Ind. 

Fpprl  — 

5208 

3.0 

9.0 

9.0 

Com,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 

meal 

Swayzees  Market,  Marion,  Ind. 

q ttt  o vt ypp*  c nil  on  Feed  — - 

9522 

3.0 

9.0 

9.0 

Corn,  oats,  com  bran,  corn  feed 

meal 

Sweetser  Grain  Company,  Sweetser,  Ind. 

. 6899 

2.8 

8.7 

7.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 

meal 

Thomas  Milling  Company,  Marion,  Ind. 

pLrvn  Feed  

. 8452 

3.0 

9.0 

8.0 

Com,  oats,  corn  feed  meal,  corn  bran 
Corn,  oats,  barley,  corn  bran,  corn 

Vjliuy  l ecu  

. 9137 

2.8 

8.7 

9.0 

feed  meal 

Tresselt  & Sons,  C.,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind. 
T’TPocpif-’a  Phot)  Feed  - 

. 7209 

3.5 

9.0 

8.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 

neal 

Tuttle  & Company,  K.,  Columbia  City,  Ind. 

ehnn  Feed  _ 

. 6945 

3.0 

9.0 

8.0 

Com,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 

meal 

Ulrey  & Company,  A.  A.,  Fairmount,  Ind. 
nVi nn  Feed  

. 6241 

2.5 

8.0 

7.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 



meal  . 

46  Succeeded  by  Mendenhall  & Weaver 
4*  Succeeded  by  C.  E.  Smith 


79 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Union  Grain  & Feed  Company,  The, 

Anderson,  Ind. 

Star  Chop  Feed 

8928 

2.5 

5.5 

20.0 

Oats,  corn  feed  meal,  corn  bran,  oat 

Wabash  Milling  Company,  Wabash,  Ind. 
Summerton’s  Chop ___  

5069 

2.0 

8.0 

9.0 

middlings,  oat  hulls,  ground  barley 

Wheat,  corn,  oats,  com  bran,  com 

Walker  & Son,  J.  M.,  Middletown,  Ind. 

Walker’s  Chop  Feed 

8164 

3.0 

8.0 

8.0 

feed  meal,  ground  corn  screenings 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 

Walton  & Whisler,  Atlanta,  Ind.47 

Chop  Feed  

5781 

3.0 

8.7 

8.0 

meal 

Com,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 

Wellington  Milling  Company,  Anderson,  Ind. 
Wellington’s  A.  X.  A.  Chop  Feed__  

5145 

3.0 

9.0 

9.0 

meal 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  com  feed 

West  Middleton  Mill  & Elevator  Company, 

West  Middleton,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed __  _ 

6002 

3.0 

9.0 

8.0 

meal 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 

Whelan,  Omer  G.,  Richmond,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

7708 

3.0 

9.0 

12.0 

meal 

Com,  oats,  corn  bran,  com  feed 

Williamsport  Grain  Company, 

Williamsport,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed 

7916 

2.8 

8.7 

8.0 

meal 

Corn,  oats,  com  bran,  corn  feed 

Witmer  Grain  Company,  Grabill,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed 

4270 

3.5 

9.0 

10.0 

meal 

Com,  oats,  com  bran 

Worthington  Grain  Company,  The, 
Worthington,  Ind. 

Enterprise  Chop  Feed 

8163 

2.8 

8.7 

9.0 

Com,  oats,  com  bran,  corn  feed 

Zionsville  Milling  Company,  Zionsville,  Ind. 
Chop  Feed  _ 

4621 

3.0 

9.0 

9.0 

meal,  ground  screenings  from  corn, 
wheat  and  oats 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  corn  feed  meal 

COCOANUT  BY-PRODUCTS 

Procter  & Gamble  Distributing  Company,  The, 
Port  Ivory,  Staten  Island,  N.  Y. 

P & G Copra  Oil  Meal  _ 

8652 

6.0 

20.0 

12.0 

Dried  cocoanut  meats 

Shepard,  Clark  & Company,  Cleveland,  Ohio 
Cocoanut  Oil  Cake  Meal 

7401 

7.0 

21.0 

10.0 

Dried  and  partially  extracted  cocoa- 

COTTONSEED  MEAL 

American  Milling  Company,  Peoria,  111. 

Amco  Cottonseed  Meal . _ 

5617 

8.0 

41.0 

10.0 

nut  meats 

Cottonseed  product 

Ashbrook  Company,  The  J.  S.,  Mattoon,  111. 
Diamond  A.  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

9202 

5.0 

36.0 

14.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Badenoch  Company,  J.  J.,  Chicago,  111. 

Cotton  Seed  Meal  ___  ___  

8764 

6.0 

36.0 

12.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Bartlett  Company,  The  J.  E.,  Jackson,  Mich. 
Michigan  “Farmer”  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal- 

5484 

7.0 

41.0 

10.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Farmer  Brand  Straight  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8064 

5.0 

36.0 

22.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Farmer  Brand  “Choice”  Cottonseed  Meal 

8823 

5.0 

41.0 

6.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Branch  Company,  T.  0.,  Little  Rock,  Ark. 
Holstein  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal  and 

Screened  Cotton  Seed  Cake  __  

8789 

6.0 

36.0 

15.0 

Decorticated  cottonseed 

Hereford  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal  and 

Screened  Cotton  Seed  Cake  _ _ _ _ 

8790 

6.0 

38.5 

12.0 

Decorticated  cottonseed 

Makfat  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal  and 

Screened  Cotton  Seed  ,Cake  . _ 

8791 

6.0: 

41.0 

10.0 

Decorticated  cottonseed 

47  Succeeded  by  A.  G.  Walton 


8o 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Brode  & Company,  F.  W.,  Memphis,  Tenn. 

Owl  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

4840 

6.0 

41.0 

10.0 

Decorticated  cottonseed 

Jay  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

7902 

5.0 

36.0 

14.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Dove  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8009 

6.0 

38.6 

12.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Buckeye  Cotton  Oil  Company,  The, 

Cincinnati,  Ohio 

“Buckeye”  Good  Cottonseed  Meal 

8911 

5.0 

36.0 

14.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  cottonseed  hulls 

Buhner  Fertilizer  Company,  Seymour,  Ind. 

Extra  Choice  Cotton  Seed  Meal  __  

8851 

. 8.0 

44.0 

10.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Burnett  Company,  The  William  A., 

Louisville,  Ky. 

Burnett’s  Prime  Cotton  Seed  Meal  

7160 

6.0 

38.6 

12.0 

Cottonseed  Product 

Bourbon  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

7006 

6.0 

36.0 

14.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Campbell,  Oscar  G.,  Camden,  Ind. 

Choice  Cottonseed  Meal _ ... 

6736 

6.0 

41.0 

13.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Campbell  & Company,  O.  L.,  Little  Rock,  Ark. 

Double  Hump  Camel  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

7037 

6.0 

41.0 

9.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Single  Hump  Camel  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal__ 

8031 

6.0 

38.5 

12.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Baby  Camel  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8144 

6.0 

36.0 

12.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Chapin  & Company,  Hammond,  Ind. 

Green  Diamond  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

4028 

8.0 

41.0 

10.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Chicago  Heights  Oil  M’f’g.  Company, 

Chicago,  111. 

“Prize”  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

8000 

6.0 

38.5 

10.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Choctaw  Sales  Company,  Kansas  City,  Mo. 

“Choctaw  Quality”  Cottonseed  Meal  and 

Cake  

7176 

6.0 

43.0 

12.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Choctaw  Standard  Cottonseed  Meal  and  Cake 

7177 

6.0 

41.0 

12.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Choctaw  Prime  Cottonseed  Meal  and  Cake.— 

8159 

5.0 

38.5 

15.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Cincinnati  Grain  & Hay  Company,  The, 

Cincinnati,  Ohio 

Cotton  Seed  Meal  

8804 

5.5 

36.0 

14.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  cottonseed  hulls 

Cottonseed  Products  Company,  The, 

Louisville,  Ky. 

Eagle  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  __  _ 

4671 

6.0 

41.0 

10.0 

Decorticated  cottonseed 

Prime  Cottonseed  Meal 

7103 

6.0 

38.0 

14.0 

Decorticated  cottonseed 

Good  Cottonseed  Meal 

7981 

6.0 

36.0 

14.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Company, 

Lafayette,  Ind. 

Crescent  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

2766 

7.5 

41.0 

13.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Cottonseed  Meal  

4776 

6.0 

37.0 

10.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Davis,  S.  P.,  Little  Rock,  Ark. 

Veribest  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7432 

6.0 

38.5 

10.0 

Decorticated  cottonseed 

Beauty  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  and  Cracked 

Screened  Cake  — 

8152 

6.0 

36.0 

12.0 

Decorticated  cottonseed 

Goodluck  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  and 

Cracked  Screened  Cake 

8438 

6.0 

41.0 

10.0 

Decorticated  cottonseed 

DeSoto  Oil  Company,  Memphis,  Tenn. 

“De  Soto”  

1520 

8.0 

38.5 

10.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Soto  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

4921 

6.0 

41.0 

10.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  cottonseed  hulls 

Dewey  Bros.  Company,  The,  Blanchester,  Ohio 

Queen  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

3506 

6.0 

41.0 

8.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Dixie  Mills  Company,  East  St.  Louis,  111. 

Anchor  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

7637 

6.0 

38.5 

12.0 

Decorticated  cottonseed 

Holsum  Brand  of  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8954 

5.5 

36.0 

14.0 

Decorticated  cottonseed 

8i 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 


and  to-be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Early  & Daniel  Company,  The,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 

Prime  Cotton  Seed  Meal  

8339 

6.0 

38.6 

13.0 

Good  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8780 

5.0 

36.0 

15.0 

East  St.  Louis  Cotton  Oil  Company, 

National  Stock  Yards,  111. 

East  St.  Louis  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

6258 

6.0 

38.5 

12.0 

Illinois  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  _ 

7091 

6.0 

41.0 

12.0 

St.  Clair  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8859 

5.0 

36.0 

16.0 

Eberts,  H.  E.  H.,  Little  Rock,  Ark. 

Milko  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  . __ 

7428 

5.5 

38.6 

12.0 

Bossy  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8133 

5.0 

36.0 

16.0 

Milko  Blue  Tag  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8462 

5.5 

41.0 

10.0 

Edinger  & Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

7920 

6.0 

38.0 

12.0 

Cotton  Seed  Meal  — 

7921 

6.0 

41.0 

12.0 

E-Co  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8053 

6.0 

36.0 

14.0 

Eldred  Mill  Company,  Jackson,  Mich. 

Gusto  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal  

8125 

5.0 

36.0 

15.0 

Feeders  Supply  Company,  Kansas  City,  Mo. 

“Equity  Brand”  Cotton  Seed  Meal  

6167 

6.0 

41.0 

10.5 

“Equity  Brand”  Red  Tag  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

and  Cake  __  __  . _ - 

7600 

5.0 

38.6 

12.0 

Ferger  Grain  Company,  The,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 

Nutritia  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8395 

6.0 

38.6 

12.0 

French  Seed  Products  Company,  Piqua,  Ohio 

Piqua  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

6726 

5.5 

38.6 

11.0 

Goeke  Company,  Edward  F.,  Evansville,  Ind. 

Prime  Cotton  Seed  Meal  _ 

8878 

8.0 

38.6 

11.0 

Goodrich  Bros.  Hay  & Grain  Company, 

Winchester,  Ind. 

Climax  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

6806 

7.0 

41.0 

10.5 

Magic  Cottonseed  Meal 

7317 

6.0 

36.0 

14.0 

Hales  & Edwards  Company,  Chicago,  111. 

Cottonseed  Meal  

9118 

5.0 

36.0 

12.0 

Hayes  Grain  & Commission  Company, 

Little  Rock,  Ark. 

Supreme  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal  

8824 

6.0 

38.6 

10.0 

Arkansaw  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8826 

5.0 

36.0 

15.0 

Nutrine  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

9419 

7.0 

41.0 

12.0 

Hewitt,  C.  G.,  Montgomery,  Ala. 

Puritan  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7441 

6.5 

41.0 

10.0 

Cotton  Seed  Meal _ 

9029 

5.0 

36.0 

16.0 

Humphreys,  Godwin  Company,  Memphis,  Tenn. 

“Southern”  Cottonseed  Meal 

4086 

6.0 

37.0 

12.0 

Dixie  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

5064 

6.0 

41.0 

12.0 

Forfat  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal ___ 

7116 

6.0 

38.5 

12.0 

Danish  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  

7178 

5.0 

36.0 

15.0 

Imperial  Cotto  Sales  Company,  Chicago,  111. 

Imperial  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  _ 

8091 

5.0 

36.0 

14.0 

Imperial  Cotto  Brand  Choice  Cottonseed 

Meal  

! 8092 

6.0 

41.0 

12.0 

Imperial  Cotto  Brand  Prime  Cottonseed  Meal 

| 8093 

5.0 

38.5 

14.0 

Imperial  Cotto  Brand  Extra  Choice  Cotton- 

seed Meal  ...  _ 

1 8401 

8.5 

43.0 

1 10.0 

Cott9nseed  product 
Cottonseed  product 


Cottonseed  product 
Cottonseed  product 
Cottonseed  product 


Decorticated  cottonseed 
Decorticated  cottonseed 
Cottonseed  product 


Cottonseed  product 
Cottonseed  product 
Cottonseed  product 


Cottonseed  product 


Decorticated  cottonseed 
Decorticated  cottonseed 


Cottonseed  product 
Cottonseed  product 
Cottonseed  product 

Cottonseed  product 
Cottonseed  product 

Cottonseed  product 


Pressed  cottonseed 
Pressed  cottonseed 
Cottonseed  product 


Cottonseed  product 
Cottonseed  product 


Cottonseed  product 
Pressed  cottonseed 
Cottonseed  product 
Cottonseed  product 


Cottonseed  product 

Cottonseed  product 
Cottonseed  product 


Cottonseed  product 


82 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Indiana  Seed  Company,  The,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Monument  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

4079 

6.5 

41.0 

13.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Pony  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7426 

6.0 

36.0 

14.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Johnson,  H.  N.,  Athens,  Ga. 

Prime  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

7740 

6.0 

38.6 

10.0 

Decorticated  cottonseed 

Cotton  Seed  Meal  _ 

8061 

5.5 

36.0 

15.0 

Cottonsed  product 

Johnson  & Company,  W.  B.,  Memphis,  Tenn. 

Supreme  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

6980 

. 7.0 

41.0 

10.0 

Decorticated  cottonseed 

“Winner  Brand”  Cotton  Seed  Meal ... 

8661 

5.5 

36.0 

14.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  25%  cottonseed  hulls 

Imperial  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal  

9212 

6.0 

38.6 

12.0 

Decorticated  cottonseed 

Jordan,  Geo.  M.,  Vincennes,  Ind. 

Cotton  Seed  Meal  — 

8861 

6.0 

37.0 

14.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Keeton  & Company,  J.  P.,  Atlanta,  Ga. 

“Southern  King  Brand”  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8098 

6.0 

38.6 

10.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Lanier  Bros.,  Nashville,  Tenn. 

Jersey  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  

6537 

6.0 

38.6 

10.0 

Decorticated  cottonseed 

Canary  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

5638 

6.0 

41.0 

10.0 

Decorticated  cottonseed 

Holstein  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

8006 

5.0 

36.0 

14.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Lovitt  & Company,  L.  B.,  Memphis,  Tenn. 

Memphis  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

6849 

6.0 

38.6 

12.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Lovit  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  

7460 

6.5 

41.0 

10.0 

Cottonseed  product 

“Thirty  Six”  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

9378 

5.5 

36.0 

14.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Merchants  Hay  & Grain  Company, 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Choice  Cottonseed  Meal  __  

4726 

6.0 

41.0 

10.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Montgomery  & Company,  C.  L., 

Memphis,  Tenn. 

Eagle  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8289 

6.0 

38.6 

12.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Star  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8816 

6.0 

36.0 

14.0 

Cottonseed  product 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Choice  Cottonseed  Meal 

5152 

7.0 

41.0 

10.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Prime  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8753 

6.0 

38.5 

10.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Cotton  Seed  Meal  

8012 

6.0 

36.0 

10.0 

Cottonseed  product 

National  Feed  Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Cotton  Seed  Meal  . _ _ 

3024 

7.5 

41.0 

14.0 

Cottonseed  product 

N.  F.  Co’s  Cotton  Seed  Meal _ _ 

5850 

7.3 

39.9 

14.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Prime  Cotton  Seed  Meal  

8788 

6.0 

38.5 

14.0 

Cottonseed  product 

National  Cotton  Seed  Meal  ___ 

8860 

5.0 

36.0 

14.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Nothern,  W.  C.,  Little  Rock,  Ark. 

Butterfly  Cottonseed  Meal  and  Cake 

6626 

6.0 

39.0 

12.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Standard  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8198 

6.0 

36.0 

12.0 

Decorticated  cottonseed 

Bee  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal  or  Cake 

8320 

6.0 

41.0 

10.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Ohio  Valley  Seed  Company,  Evansville,  Ind. 

Crown  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

4091 

7.0 

41.0 

10.0 

Decorticated  cottonseed 

Osage  Cotton  Oil  Company, 

Chattanooga,  Tenn. 

Silo  Brand  (Standard  Quality)  Cottonseed 

Meal  and  Cake 

6395 

6.0 

41.0 

12.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Silo  Brand  (Special  Quality)  Cottonseed 

Meal  and  Cake _ 

6964 

7.0 

43.0 

12.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Silo  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  and  Cake 

8032 

5.0 

38.5 

14.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Park  & Pollard  Company  of  Illinois,  The, 

•'  . • j 

Chicago,  111. 

The  Park  & Pollard  Co.  of  Illinois’  Cotton- 
seed Meal  — . 

9210 

5.5 

36.0 

14.0 

Cottonseed  product 

83 

Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Paxson,  C.  E.,  Elkhart,  Ind. 

Cottonseed  Meal  _ 

6689 

6.0 

37.0 

14.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Phoenix  Cotton  Oil  Company,  Memphis,  Tenn. 
Phoenix  Prime  Cottonseed  Meal  and  Cotton- 
seed Cake __  - 

8405 

5.0 

38.6 

12.5 

Cottonseed  product 

Phoenix  Cottonseed  Meal  and  Cottonseed 

Cake  

8406 

4.5 

36.0 

16.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Pierce  Elevator  Company,  The, 

Union  City,  Ind. 

Choice  Cottonseed  Meal 

6267 

7.0 

41.0 

10.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Pincoffs  Company,  Maurice,  Chicago,  111. 

Victoria  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  

8733 

6.0 

38.5 

12.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Pinco  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  

8734 

6.0 

36.0 

14.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Planters  Cotton  Oil  Company,  Dallas,  Texas 

Prime  Cotton  Seed  Meal  and  Cake  

7463 

6.0 

43.0 

11.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Poe  Cottonseed  Products  Company, 

Memphis,  Tenn. 

“Butter  Cup”  Brand  of  Prime  Cottonseed 
Meal  ___  ___  __  ___  ...  _ . 

8293 

6.0 

38.6 

12.0 

Cottonseed  product 

“Golden  Rod”  Brand,  a Good  Cottonseed 

Meal  ___  _____  _ _. 

8294 

5.0 

36.0 

14.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Dandelion  Brand,  Choice  Cottonseed  Meal 

8710 

6.0 

41.1 

10.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Rapier  Sugar  Feed  Company,  Owensboro,  Ky. 

Rapier’s  Brand  Choice  Grade  Cottonseed  Meal 

6278 

7.5 

41.0 

10.0 

Decorticated  cottonseed 

Rapier’s  Cottonseed  Meal  

6693 

7.0 

38.5 

14.0 

Decorticated  cottonseed 

Roberts  Cotton  Oil  Company,  Memphis,  Tenn. 

Good  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8708 

5.0 

36.0 

14.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Simmons  & Norris,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 

Excello  Cottonseed  Meal 

9069 

5.0 

36.0 

14.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Southern  Cotton  Oil  Company,  The, 

Memphis,  Tenn. 

Cotton  Seed  Meal  

8821 

6.0 

36.0 

16.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Southern  Seed  Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Atlas  Cotton  Seed  Meal  _ _ __  

3385 

6.0 

41.0 

9.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Economy  Cotton  Seed  Meal  

8707 

5.0 

36.0 

15.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Stockman’s  Feed  Company,  Kansas  City,  Mo. 

Choice  Cotton  Seed  Meal  or  Cake _ 

7208 

5.0 

41.0 

10.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Texas  Cake  & Linter  Company,  Dallas,  Texas 
“Texoma”  Brand  High  Grade  Cottonseed 
Meal  _.  _ _ _____  __  _ __ 

6180 

6.0 

41.0 

10.0 

Decorticated  cottonseed 

Interstate  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  and 
Cracked  Cake 

7034 

6.0 

38.6 

12.0 

Decorticated  cottonseed 

Sunset  Brand  Prime  Cracked  Cottonseed 

Cake  and  Meal  _ 

8508 

5.0 

41.0 

14.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Union  Seed  & Fertilizer  Company, 

New  York,  N.  Y. 

“American  Red  Tag”  Cottonseed  Meal  _ ___ 

6210 

7.0 

38.5 

11.5 

Cottonseed  product 

Surety  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8264 

5.5 

36.0 

14.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Wagner-White  Company,  Inc.,  Jackson,  Mich. 

Waw-Co  Cottonseed  Meal 

8008 

6.0 

38.5 

12.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Waw-Co  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

8927 

5.0 

36.0 

22.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Walsh  & Company,  James,  Lawrenceburg,  Ind. 

Cotton  Seed  Meal  

8812 

8.0 

38.6 

11.0 

Cottonseed  product 

Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


LABEL 


Windle,  Allen  J.,  West  Lafayette,  Ind. 

Cotton  Seed  Meal  

COLD  PRESSED  COTTONSEED 

Bartlett  Company,  J.  E.,  Jackson,  Mich. 

Cold  Pressed  Cottonseed 

Chicago  Heights  Oil  M’f’g.  Company, 

Chicago,  111. 

“Prize”  Cold  Pressed  Cottonseed 

Davis,  S.  P.,  Little  Rock,  Ark. 

Standard  Brand  Cold  Pressed  Cotton  Seed— 

Feeders  Supply  Company,  Kansas  City,  Mo. 
Equity  Brand  Cold  Pressed  Cotton  Seed 

Mississippi  Delta  Planting  Company, 

Scott,  Miss. 

Acme  Brand  Cold  Pressed  Cottonseed 

COTTONSEED  MEAL  AND  COTTON- 
SEED HULLS  (COTTONSEED  FEED) 

American  Cotton  Hull  & Fibre  Company,  The, 
Memphis,  Tenn. 

“Cyclone”  Cottonseed  Feed : 

Ashbrook  Company,  The  J.  S.,  Mattoon,  111. 
Cotton  Seed  Feed  

Buckeye  Cotton  Oil  Company,  The, 

Cincinnati,  Ohio 

Buco  Cottonseed  Feed  

“Buckeye”  Good  Cottonseed  Meal 

Burnett  Company,  Wm.  A.,  Louisville,  Ky. 
Cotton  Seed  Feed  

Cottonseed  Products  Company,  The, 

Louisville,  Ky. 

Cotton  Seed  Feed  

East  St.  Louis  Cotton  Oil  Company, 

National  Stock  Yards,  111. 

Cottonseed  Feed  

Humphreys-Godwin  Company,  Memphis,  Tenn. 
77  Cottonseed  Feed 

Imperial  Cotto  Sales  Company,  Chicago,  111. 
Imperial  Cotto  Brand  Cottonseed  Feed 

Johnson  & Company,  W.  B.,  Memphis,  Tenn. 
“Perfection”  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Feed 

Lanier  Bros.,  Nashville,  Tenn. 

Durham  Brand  Cottonseed  Feed 

Memphis  Cotton  Hull  & Fibre  Company,  Ltd., 
Memphis,  Tenn. 

“Cyclone”  Cotton  Seed  Feed  

Poe  Cottonseed  Products  Company, 

Memphis,  Tenn. 

“Raven  Brand”  Cottonseed  Feed 

“Poco  Brand”  Cottonseed  Feed 

Gold  Dust  Brand  Cottonseed  Feed 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

3764 

7.0 

38.5 

15.0 

Cottonseed  product 

6494 

5.0 

26.0 

26.0 

Pressed  whole  cottonseed  including 
hulls 

7002 

6.0 

25.0 

20.0 

Pressed  whole  cottonseed  including 
hulls 

6272 

6.0 

26.0 

25.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  delinted  cottonseed 
hulls 

7080 

6.0 

20.0 

23.0 

Pressed  whole  cottonseed  including 
hulls 

6125 

7.0 

23.0 

27.0 

Whole  pressed  delinted  cottonseed  in- 
cluding hulls 

4071 

3.0 

20.0 

23.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  ground  delinted 
cottonseed  hulls 

9385 

3.5 

20.0 

27.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  ground  delinted 
cottonseed  hulls 

7965 

3.5 

20.0 

27.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  cottonseed  hulls 

8911 

5.0 

36.0 

14.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  cottonseed  hulls 

9355 

6.0 

35.0 

12.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  cottonseed  hulls 

8894 

5.5 

33.4 

14.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  cottonseed  hulls 

7469 

6.0 

34.0 

15.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  cottonseed  hulls 

6115 

4.0 

20.0 

28.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  delinted  cottonseed 
hulls 

8094 

3.5 

20.0 

25.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  delinted  cottonseed 
hulls 

9205 

3.0 

20.0 

26.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  cottonseed  hulls 

8947 

5.0 

20.0 

22.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  cottonseed  hulls 

8704 

3.0 

20.0 

26.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  ground  delinted 
cottonseed  hulls 

8295 

3.0 

20.0 

25.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  cottonseed  hulls 

8711 

5.0 

33.4 

17.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  cottonseed  hulls 

8740 

4.0 

30.0 

23.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  cottonseed  hulls 

85 

Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


— 

Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Southern  Seed  Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Atlas  Cotton  Seed  Feed 

8792 

3.0 

20.0 

2^.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  ground  cottonseed 

Tennessee  Fibre  Company,  Memphis,  Tenn. 
Creamo  Brand  Cottonseed  Feed 

8495 

3.5 

20.0 

26.0 

hulls 

Cottonseed  meal,  cottonseed  hulls 

Union  Seed  & Fertilizer  Company, 

West  New  York,  N.  J. 

Columbia  Cotton  Seed  Feed 

8663 

3.0 

20.5 

25.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  cottonseed  hulls 

COTTONSEED  HULLS 

Tennessee  Fibre  Company,  Memphis,  Tenn. 
Cotton  Seed  Hulls 

4182 

1.0 

3.0 

50.0 

Cottonseed  hulls 

LINSEED  MEAL 

American  Linseed  Company,  New  York,  N.  Y. 
Old  Process  Linseed  Oil  Meal 

4859 

6.0 

34.0 

9.0 

Flaxseed  product 

Arcady  Farms  Milling  Company,  Chicago,  111. 
Old  Process  Linseed  Oil  Meal  

8800 

6.0 

32.0 

10.0 

Flaxseed  product 

Badenoch  Company,  J.  J.,  Chicago,  111. 

Old  Process  Oil  Meal  __  ___  

8763 

6.0 

30.0 

9.0 

Flaxseed  product 

Chicago  Heights  Oil  Mfg.  Co.,  Chicago,  111. 

Old  Process  Oil  Meal  — 

6361 

6.0 

32.0 

10.0 

Flaxseed  product 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Company, 

Lafayette,  Ind. 

Linseed  Meal 

2380 

6.0 

32.0 

11.0 

Flaxseed  product 

Dickinson  Company,  The  Albert,  Chicago,  111. 
Dickinson’s  Linseed  Meal ___  ...  __ 

6404 

5.0 

32.0 

10.0 

Flaxseed  product 

Early  & Daniel  Company,  The,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 
Old  Process  Oil  Meal 

8210 

5.0 

30.0 

10.0 

Flaxseed  product 

Evans  Linseed  Oil  Company,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 
Linseed  Oil  Meal __ 

773 

6.0 

32.0 

15.0 

Flaxseed  product 

Hayes  Grain  & Commission  Company, 

Chicago,  111. 

Indiana  Brand  Old  Process  Linseed  oil  Meal- 

9373 

5.0 

33.0 

10.0 

Flaxseed  product 

Hirst  & Begley  Linseed  Company,  Chicago,  111. 
Hirst  & Begley  Linseed  Co.  Brand  Linseed 
Meal  _ 

7165 

6.0 

34.0 

9.0 

Flaxseed  product 

Kellogg  & Sons,  Inc.,  Spencer,  Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

Old  Process  Oil  Meal  ... 

5877 

5.0 

33.0 

10.0 

Flaxseed  product 

Mayflower  Mills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind. 

Oil  Cake  Meal 

3260 

6.0 

30.0 

9.0 

Flaxseed  product 

Merchants  Hay  & Grain  Company, 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Linseed  Meal 

4957 

8.0 

36.0 

10.0 

Flaxseed  product 

Metzger  Seed  & Oil  Company,  The,  Toledo,  0. 

Old  Process  Oil  Meal __  ...  ._  __  . 

6672 

5.0 

30.0 

10.0 

Flaxseed  product 

Midland  Linseed  Products  Company, 
Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Crescent  Brand  Pure  Old  Process  Ground 
Linseed  Cake  . . . 

7126 

5.0 

29.0 

9.5 

Flaxseed  product 

Midland  Brand  Pure  Old  Process  Ground 
Linseed  Cake  

8570 

5.0 

32.0 

9.5 

Flaxseed  product 

Argentine  Brand  Pure  Old  Process  Ground 
Linseed  Cake  . . . ... 

9000 

5.0 

30.0 

9.5 

Flaxseed  product 

86 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Minnesota  Linseed  Oil  Company, 

Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Ground  Oil  Cake  or  Oil  Meal 

5406 

5.0 

34.0 

11.0 

Flaxseed  product 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Old  Process  Linseed  Meal ... 

8013 

5.0 

34.0 

9.0 

Flaxseed  product 

National  Feed  Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Linseed  Oil  Meal  __  

4502 

7.0 

32.0 

7.0 

Flaxseed  product 

Northern  Linseed  Oil  Company, 

Minneapolis,  Minn. 

“Pure  Old  Process  Ground  Linseed  Cake” 

5779 

6.0 

33.0 

9.0 

Flaxseed  product 

Park  & Pollard  Company  of  Illinois,  The, 
Chicago,  111. 

The  Park  & Pollard  Co.  of  Illinois’  Pure  Old 
Process  Ground  Linseed  Cake  

9209 

5.0 

32.0 

9.5 

Flaxseed  product 

Pincoffs  Company,  Maurice,  Chicago,  111. 

Pinco  Brand  Old  Process  Oil  Meal 

8732 

6.0 

32.0 

10.0 

Flaxseed  product 

Sherwin-Williams  Company,  The,  Cleveland,  0. 

S.  W.  C.  Linseed  Meal 

1723 

• 6.0 

33.0 

8.0 

Flaxseed  product 

Simmons  & Norris,  Cincinnati,  Ohio. 

Excello  Old  Process  Oil  Meal 

9338 

5.0 

30.0 

10.0 

Flaxseed  product 

Toledo  Seed  & Oil  Company,  The,  Toledo,  Ohio 

Major  Brand  Old  Process  Oil  Meal 

8713 

6.0 

33.0 

10.0 

Flaxseed  product 

Valparaiso  Grain  & Elevator  Company, 
Valparaiso,  Ind. 

Ground  Oil  Cake - 

1404 

5.0 

30.0 

12.0 

Flaxseed  product 

Washbum-Crosby  Company, 

Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Ground  Linseed  Cake  Oil  Meal 

7234 

5.0 

32.0 

10.0 

Flaxseed  product 

UNSCREENED  FLAXSEED  OIL  FEED 

Laxo  Cake  Meal  Company,  The,  Chicago,  111. 

Old  Process  Laxo  Cake  Meal 

4618 

6.0 

25.0 

12.0 

Ground  cake  from  flaxseed  and  field 

LINSEED  MEAL  AND  SCREENINGS 

OIL  FEED 

American  Milling  Company,  Peoria,  111. 

Amen  Old  Process  Linseed  Oil  Meal  and 
Screenings  Oil  Feed  

8378 

5.0 

30.0 

10.0 

seeds  (wheat,  wild  buckwheat,  pig 
eon  grass,  wild  mustard) 

Linseed  meal,  ground  screenings  oil 

Chicago  Heights  Oil  Mfg.  Company, 

Chicago,  111. 

Linseed  Screenings  Oil  Feed 

9318 

6.0 

15.0 

15.0 

feed 

Ground  flaxseed  screenings 

VELVET  BEAN  FEED 

Alabama  Black  Belt  Company, 

Montgomery,  Ala. 

Velvet  Bean  and  Pod  Feed  Meal  1 

8568 

4.0 

18.5 

15.0 

Ground  velvet  beans,  pods 

Velvet  Bean  & Pod  Feed 

9200 

4.0 

16.5 

15.0 

Ground  velvet  beans,  pods 

Bartlett  Company,  J.  E.,  Jackson,  Mich. 

Velvet  Bean  Feed 

9416 

4.5 

18.0 

15.0 

Ground  velvet  beans,  pods  . 

Butler  County  Feed  & Milling  Company, 
Greenville,  Ala. 

Velvet  Bean  Feed 1 

8064 

4.2 

16.0 

14.0 

Ground  velvet  beans,  pods 

87 

Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Port  Deposit  Peed  & Milling  Company, 

Port  Deposit,  Ala. 

Velvet  Bean  Peed 

9268 

4.2 

16.5 

14.0 

Ground  velvet  beans,  pods 

Gibson  Live  Stock  & Feed  Company, 

Princeton,  Ind. 

Velvet  Bean  and  Pod  Peed 

9408 

4.0 

16.5 

16.0 

Ground  velvet  beans,  pods 

Hewitt,  C.  G.,  Montgomery,  Ala. 

Supreme  Brand  Velvet  Bean  Peed 

8900 

4.0 

17.0 

15.0 

Ground  velvet  beans,  pods 

Joseph  Company,  Dan,  Columbus,  Ga. 

Diamond  Brand  Velvet  Bean  Peed 

8874 

4.0 

17.5 

15.0 

Ground  velvet  beans,  pods 

Loogootee  Milling  Company,  Loogootee,  Ind. 
Velvet  Bean  Peed _ __  . 

9480 

3.8 

16.5 

15.0 

Ground  velvet  beans,  pods 

Maumee  Valley  Mills,  New  Haven,  Ind. 

Velvet  Bean  Peed _ 

8998 

4.0 

15.0 

20.0 

Ground  velvet  beans,  pods 

Smith,  Roy  & Mark,  Tennille,  Ga. 

Velvet  Bean  Peed  

8429 

4.0 

17.0 

15.0 

Ground  velvet  beans,  hulls 

PEANUT  FEED 

Brode  & Company,  F.  W.,  Memphis,  Tenn. 

B.  B.  Brand  Unhulled  Peanut  Oil  Peed 

9167 

5.0 

30.0 

14.0 

Peanut  meal,  peanut  hulls 

Buckeye  Cotton  Oil  Company,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 
Peanut  Peed _ 

9026 

6.0 

30.0 

22.0 

Peanut  meal,  hulls 

Donalsonville  Oil  Mill,  Donalsonville,  Ga. 
Imperial  Brand  Unhulled  Peanut  Oil  Peed 

9130 

7.5 

32.0 

23.0 

Peanut  meal,  hulls 

Lovitt  & Company,  L.  B.,  Memphis,  Tenn. 
“Victory  Braftd”  Peanut  Peed  _ _ 

9156 

6.0 

30.0 

25.0 

Peanut  meal,  peanut  hulls 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Unhulled  Peanut  Oil  Feed 

9139 

6.0 

30.0 

22.0 

Peanut  meal,  hulls 

BARLEY  CLEANINGS 

Klipfel  & Company,  P.  L.,  Chicago,  111. 

Malted  Barley  Cleanings  

0566 

1.2 

20.8 

15.9 

Malted  barley  cleanings 

DISTILLERS’  DRIED  GRAINS 

American  Milling  Company,  Peoria,  111. 

Empire  State  Dairy  Peed 

8014 

8.0 

30.0 

14.0 

Corn  distillers’  dried  grains 

Atlas  Peed  & Milling  Company,  Peoria,  111. 

Atlas  Distillers’  Grains . 

8303 

6.0 

30.0 

14.0 

Distillers  dried  grains  from  corn, 

Chapin  & Company,  Hammond,  Ind. 

Ajax  Flakes 

7225 

10.0 

30.0 

14.0 

oats,  barley,  rye 

Corn  distillers’  grains 

Conroy,  M.  A.,  Jeffersonville,  Ind. 

Sunny  Brook  Distillers’  Dried  Grains 

83108 

7.0 

29.0 

14.2 

Distillers’  dried  grains  from  com, 

Continental  Cereal  Company,  Peoria,  111. 
Continental  Gluten  Peed 

6066 

6.0 

26.5 

10.0 

rye,  malt 

Distillers’  dried  grains  from  corn, 

Dewey  Bros.  Company,  The,  Blanchester,  Ohio 
Corn  Three  D.  Grains  _ 

3124 

9.0 

26.0 

13.0 

oats,  rye,  barley 

Distillers  dried  grains 

Eagle  Three  D.  Grains  

3693 

10.0 

30.0 

13.0 

Distillers’  dried  corn  grains 

Donahue-Stratton  Company,  Milwaukee,  Wis. 
Onyx  Dried  Grains _ . _ 

7260 

7.0 

19.0 

19.0 

Dried  grains  from  corn,  malt,  mal 

sprouts 

88 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Edinger  & Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Arrow  Distillers  Dried  Grains  __ _ 

Glenmore  Distilleries  Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

9035 

10.0 

30.0 

11.0 

Distillers’  dried  grains  from  corn, 
barley,  malt,  rye 

Distillers’  Dried  Grains  __  _ _ 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

7916 

8.0 

28.0 

12.0 

Distillers’  dried  grains  from  corn, 
barley,  malt,  rye 

Distillers  Corn  Grains 

Old  Vincennes  Distillery  Company, 

Vincennes,  Ind. 

8025 

8.0 

30.0 

14.0 

Corn  distillers’  dried  grains 

0.  V.  D.  Dried  Grains 

Probst  & Kassebaum,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

8030 

10.0 

30.0 

13.0 

Distillers’  dried  grains  from  corn, 
rye,  malt 

A.  Dairy  Feed  - 

Semans  Edible  Oils  Company, 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Corn  Distillers’  Dried  Grains  (Jersey  Brand).. 

Squibb  & Company,  W.  P.,  Lawrenceburg,  Ind. 

8181 

8.0 

28.0 

14.0 

Com  distillers’  dried  grains 

8420 

10.0 

30.0 

12.0 

Distillers’  dried  grains  from  corn, 
rye,  barley 

Sqaibbs  Distillery  Dried  Grains 

Ubiko  Milling  Company,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 

7950 

9.0 

30.0 

15.0 

Corn,  rye,  barley  malt 

Fourex  (XXXX)  Distillers  Dried  Corn  Grains. 

Walsh  & Company,  James,  Lawrenceburg,  Ind. 

7311 

12.0 

31.0 

13.0 

Distillers’  dried  corn  grains 

Walden  Dried  Grains  ...  

BREWERS’  DRIED  GRAINS 

Bartlett  Company,  J.  E.,  Jackson,  Mich. 

Dried  Brewers’  Grains 

Berghoff  Brewing  Association, 

Port  Wayne,  Ind. 

8069 

11.5 

28.5 

14.5 

Corn  distillers’  dried  grains 

1 8015 

5.0 

25.0 

13.0 

Brewers’  dried  grains  from  barley 

Brewers  Dried  Grains 

Butler  & Company,  Edw.  J.,  Chicago,  111. 

8701 

7.0 

19.0 

17.0 

Barley  malt,  refined  corn  grits 

Dried  Brewers  Grains 

Centlivre  Brewing  Company,  C.  L., 

Port  Wayne,  Ind. 

5719 

5.0 

25.0 

18.0 

Brewers  dried  grains  from  barley, 
corn  grits,  rice 

“Centlivre’s  Brewers  Dried  Grains”  — 

Donahue-Stratton  Company,  Milwaukee,  Wis. 
“Tomahawk”  Brand  Pure  Dried  Brewers 

5662 

6.0 

19.0 

18.0 

Barley  malt,  refined  corn  grits 

Grains  

Edinger  & Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

5978 

6.0 

26.0 

14.0 

Brewers  dried  grains 

Arrow  Brewers  Grains 

Evansville  Dried  Malt  & Peed  Company,  The, 
Evansville,  Ind. 

8036 

5.0 

25.0 

17.0 

Brewers’  dried  grains  from  barley 
malt,  rice,  corn  grits 

Dried  Brewers  Grains  

Fruechtenicht,  Henry,  Louisville,  Ky. 

6884 

5.0 

24.0 

16.0 

Malted  barley,  cereal  corn  flakes, 
corn  grits 

Blue  Grass  Dried  Brewers  Grains 

Jones  Company,  J.  H.,  Louisville,  Ky. 

8577 

6.0 

25.0 

15.0 

Brewers  dried  grains  from  barley 
malt,  corn  grits,  rice 

Big  J.  Brewers  Dried  Grains 

Milwaukee  Grains  & Peed  Company, 

Milwaukee,  Wis. 

7724 

5.0 

25.0 

14.0 

Brewers  dried  grains  from  corn  grits, 
barley,  malt 

“Crown”  Dried  Brewers  Grains 

Mueller,  E.  P.,  Chicago,  111. 

6687 

5.0 

25.0 

15.0 

Brewers  dried  grains  from  barley 
malt,  corn  grits 

Brewers’  Dried  Grains 

8630 

5.0 

25.0 

17.0. 

Brewers  dried  grains  from  barley 
malt,  corn  grits 

Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Muessel  Brewing  Company,  The, 

South  Bend,  Ind. 

Muessel’s  Dried  Brewers  Grains  

5292 

6.1 

24.0 

16.1 

Brewers’  dried  grains  from  barley, 

Neumond,  Inc.,  K.  & E.,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

“Goldnes  Kalb”  Dried  Brewers’  Grains 

7132 

6.0 

24.0 

13.0 

corn 

Malted  barley,  rice,  corn  grits 

Peoples  Brewing  Company,  The, 

Terre  Haute,  Ind. 

Brewers  Dried  Grains  __  _ 

5585 

5.5 

23.0 

16.2 

Brewers’  dried  grains  from  barley 

Rankin  & Company,  M.  G.,  Milwaukee,  Wis. 
Durham  Dried  Brewers  Grains 

8682 

6.0 

26.0 

16.0 

malt,  granulated  rice,  refined  corn 
flakes 

Brewers  dried  grains  from  malted 
barley 

Brewers  dried  grains  from  corn  grits, 

Scottsburg  Elevator,  Scottsburg,  Ind. 

Brewers’  Dried  Grains  

8449 

6.0 

24.0 

18.0 

Western  Grains  & Feed  Company,  Chicago,  111. 
Milkmaid  Dried  Brewers’  Grains  _ 

6777 

5.0 

25.0 

16.0 

barley  malt,  rice 

Brewers  dried  grains  from  malted 

Pure  Dried  Brewers’  Grains  __  . 

0839 

5.0 

21.0 

17.0 

barley,  rice 

Malted  barley,  rice 

YEAST  GRAINS 

Mueller,  Edward  P.,  Chicago,  111. 

Fleischman’s  Dried  Grains 

7762 

7.0 

19.0 

19.0 

Dried  yeast  grains  from  corn,  barley 

MALT  SPROUTS 

Klipfel  & Company,  P.  L.,  Chicago,  111. 

Malt  Sprouts  ___  

•3898 

1.5 

23.5 

16.4 

malt,  malt  sprouts 

Malt  sprouts 

Mueller,  E.  P.,  Chicago,  111. 

Malt  Sprouts  

8709 

2.0 

20.0 

16.0 

Malt  sprouts 

Raschka,  Wm.,  Ainsworth,  Ind. 

Malt  Sprouts  

4023 

1.5 

25.0 

12.0 

Malt  sprouts 

Zorn  Brewing  Company,  Ph., 

Michigan  City,  Ind. 

Malt  Sprouts  

5997 

1.0 

18.0 

18.0 

Malt  sprouts 

CORN  GLUTEN  FEED 

Badenoch  Company,  J.  J.,  Chicago,  111. 

Gluten  Feed 

8879 

10.0 

23.0 

8.0 

Corn  gluten  feed 

Chicago  Heights  Oil  Mfg.  Co.,  Chicago,  111. 
“Prize”  Corn  Glutenfeed _ . 

7266 

1.0 

23.0 

8.5 

Corn  gluten  feed 

Clinton  Sugar  Refining  Company, 

Clinton,  Iowa 

Clinton  Corn  Gluten  Feed __ 

5452 

3.0 

23.0 

8.0 

Corn  gluten  feed 

Corn  Products  Refining  Company, 

New  York,  N.  Y. 

Buffalo  Corn  Gluten  Feed  __  

5530 

1.0 

23.0 

8.5 

Corn  gluten  feed 

Douglas  Company,  Cedar  Rapids,  Iowa 

Douglas  Corn  Gluten  Feed 

6032 

1.0 

23.0 

8.0 

Corn  gluten  feed 

Hubinger  Bros.  Company,  J.  C.,  Keokuk,  Iowa 
K.  K.  K.  Corn  Gluten  Feed 

0638 

2.4 

23.0 

7.5 

Corn  gluten  feed 

Mead  Johnson  & Company,  Evansville,  Ind. 
Mead’s  Corn  Gluten  Feed  and  Barley  Malt 

9003 

10.0 

45.0 

7.0 

Com  gluten  feed,  barley  malt 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Corn  Gluten  Feed  

8838 

3.0 

24.0 

7.0 

Corn  gluten  feed 

90 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 


Piel  Bros.  Starch  Company,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 
Hoosier  Gluten  Peed  

Staley  Manufacturing  Company,  A.  E., 

Decatur,  111. 

Staley’s  Corn  Gluten  Feed 

Union  Starch  & Refining  Company, 

Edinburg,  Ind. 

Union  Corn  Gluten  Peed 

CORN  GLUTEN  MEAL 

Corn  Products  Refining  Company, 

New  York,  N.  Y. 

Diamond  Corn  Gluten  Meal 

CORN  GERM  MEAL 

American  Hominy  Company,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 
Homcoline  Peed  

American  Milling  Company,  Peoria,  111. 

Amco  Com  Germ  Meal I 

Atlas  Peed  & Milling  Company,  Peoria,  111. 
Atlas  Corn  Oil  Meal 

Bartlett  Company,  J.  E.,  Jackson,  Mich. 

Corn  Germ  Meal 

Chicago  Heights  Oil  Mfg.  Co.,  Chicago,  111. 
Heights  Corn  Oil  Cake  Meal 

Clinton  Sugar  Refining  Company, 

Clinton,  Iowa 

Clinton  Corn  Germ  Meal .' 

Continental  Cereal  Company,  Peoria,  111. 
Continental  Corn  Germ  Meal 

Corn  Products  Refining  Company, 

New  York,  N.  Y. 

Diamond  Hog  Meal  

Argo  Corn  Oil  Cake  Meal 

Dewey  Bros.  Company,  The,  Blanchester,  Ohio 
Corn  Germ  Oil  Meal 

Eberts  Grain  Company,  Nabb,  Ind. 

Eberts  Corn  Germ  Meal 

Hubinger  Bros.  Company,  J.  C.,  Keokuk,  Iowa 
Com  Germ  Oil  Meal 

Hurst  & Company,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Corn  Oil  Cake  Meal ■_ 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Yellow  Com  Germ  Meal 

White  Corn  Germ  Meal 

Pearson,  W.  W.,  Upland,  Ind. 

Pearson’s  Meal  

Piel  Bros.  Starch  Company,  Indianapoils,  Ind. 
P.  Bro.  Corn  Oil  Cake 


Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

2856 

2.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Corn  gluten  feed  artificially  colored 
with  orange 

8999 

2.5 

20.0 

12.0 

Corn  gluten  feed 

9132 

2.0 

24.0 

6.3 

Corn  gluten  feed 

6979 

1.0 

40.0 

4.0 

Corn  gluten  meal 

3929 

5.0 

17.0 

7.0 

Com  germ  meal 

8907 

7.0 

15.5 

9.0 

Corn  germ  meal 

8460 

7.0 

18.0 

9.0 

Corn  germ  meal 

9340 

5.0 

17.0 

7.0 

Com  germ  meal 

8885 

8.0 

18.0 

10.0 

Corn  germ  meal 

6788 

7.0 

20.0 

12.0 

Corn  germ  meal 

8667 

7.0 

18.0 

9.0 

Com  germ  meal 

7478 

7.0 

18.0 

13.0 

Corn  germ  meal 

7720 

7.0 

18.0 

13.0 

Corn  germ  meal 

8662 

6.0 

20.0 

10.0 

Corn  germ  meal 

4S55 

8.0 

18.0 

9.0 

Corn  germ  meal 

8921 

9.0 

22.0 

8.0 

Com  germ  meal 

8528 

7.0 

18.0 

3.0 

Corn  germ  meal 

6429 

8.0 

18.0 

9.0 

Com  hearts  with  part  of  the  oil  ex- 
tracted 

7220 

6.0 

19.0 

4.5 

Corn  hearts  with  part  of  the  oil  ex- 
tracted 

7702 

7.0 

18.0 

10.0 

Com  germ  meal 

7910 

10.0 

1 15.0 

1 10.0 

Corn  germ  meal 

9i 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

/ 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  nrotein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Pincoffs  Company,  Maurice,  Chicago,  111. 

Pinco  Brand  Yellow  Corn  Germ  Meal 

6720 

8.0 

20.0 

10.0 

Corn  germ  meal 

Semans  Edible  Oils  Company,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 
“Germena”  Germ  Oil  Meal 

8639 

6.0 

18.0 

5.0 

Corn  germ  meal 

Sunco  Meal  

8967 

7.0 

19.0 

19.0 

Corn  germ  oil  meal,  sunflower  oil 

“Indiana”  Com  Germ  Meal  _ _ ___  

9003 

7.0 

18.0 

9.0 

cake  meal 

Corn  germ  meal 

Simpson,  Orval,  Chicago,  111. 

Simpson’s  Corn  Oilcake  Meal 

8664 

9.0 

21.0 

8.0 

Corn  germ  meal 

Union  Starch  & Refining  Company, 

Edinburg,  Ind. 

Union  Com  Germ  Meal 

2237 

8.0 

18.0 

9.0 

Corn  germ  meal 

CORN  GERM  MEAL  AND  CORN  DIS- 
TILLERS’ DRIED  GRAINS 

Semans  Edible  Oils  Company,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 
Maizmeal  __ ___  _ 

8240 

8.0 

26.0 

8.0 

Corn  germ  meal,  corn  distillers  dried 
grains 

Corn  product 

HOMINY  MEALS,  FEED  AND  CHOPS 

American  Hominy  Company,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 
Homco  Hominy  Eeed  __  ...  _ 

9333 

5.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Amo  Mill  & Elevator  Company,  Amo,  Ind. 

Amo  Hominy  Eeed  ...  ...  _.  

5778 

7.0 

10.0 

7.0 

Corn  product 

Amo  Mill  & Elevator  Company, 

Bargersville,  Ind. 

Amo  Hominy  Feed 

8724 

7.0 

10.0 

7.0 

Corn  product 

Aunt  Jemima  Mills  Company,  St.  Joseph,  Mo. 
Hominy  Eeed 

6254 

6.0 

11.0 

9.0 

Corn  product 

Badenoch  Company,  J.  J.,  Chicago,  111. 

That  Snowflake  Fine  White  Hominy  Feed 

8620 

7.0 

10.0 

4.0 

Corn  product 

Ballard  Corn  Mills,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Hominy  Meal  1 

9165 

7.5 

10.5 

5.9 

Corn  product 

Beatrice  Com  Mills,  Lincoln,  Neb. 

Hominy  Feed ...  . _ 

3719 

8.0 

10.0 

4.5 

Corn  product 

Bishopp  Hominy  Company,  Sheldon,  111. 

Pure  Corn  Hominy  Feed 

4082 

5.0 

8.0 

5.0 

Corn  product 

Blair  Milling  Company,  The,  Atchison,  Kansas 
Blair’s  Hominy  Feed  

6154 

6.5 

9.0 

7.0 

Corn  product 

Cereal  Mills  Company,  Wausau,  Wis. 

Hominy  Feed 

7663 

8.5 

11.2 

4.0 

Corn  product  from  manufacture  of 

Chicago  Heights  Oil  Mfg.  Company, 

Chicago,  111. 

“Prize”  White  Hominy  Feed  ._  

6732 

7.0 

9.0 

10.0 

hominy  grits 

Corn  product 

Cincinnati  Grain  & Hay  Company, 

Cincinnati,  Ohio 

Hominy  Meal  

7839 

8.4 

11.0 

7.5 

Corn  product 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Company, 

Lafayette,  Ind. 

Hominy  Feed  _ 

4516 

7.5 

10.0 

6.0 

Corn  product 

Deutsch  & Sickert  Company,  Milwaukee,  Wis. 
Success  Hominy  Feed  _ _ 

6071 

6.0 

9.0 

6.0 

Corn  product 

92 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Dickinson  Company,  The  Albert,  Chicago,  111. 
Hominy  Feed  Meal  _ 

3160 

6.0 

9.0 

5.0 

Corn  product 

A.  D.  Co.  Hominy  Feed 

8863 

6.0 

10.0 

5.0 

Corn  product 

Eagle  Roller  Mill  Company,  New  Ulm,  Minn. 
Hominy  Feed - 

6966 

7.0 

10.6 

6.0 

Hominy  feed 

Early  & Daniel  Company,  The,  Cincinnati,  0. 
Hominy  Meal  ___  - 

8338 

. 6.0 

9.0 

9.0 

Corn  product 

Eberts  Grain  Company,  Nabb,  Ind. 

Eberts  Grain  Co.  Hominy  Meal 

9423 

6.5 

10.0 

5.5 

Corn  product 

Edinger  & Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Arrow  Hominy  Feed  

7766 

6.7 

10.2 

5.5 

Corn  product 

Elevator  Milling  Company,  Springfield,  111. 
Hominy  Feed  

2614 

7.5 

10.0 

3.8 

Corn  product 

Emison  & Company,  J.  & S.,  (Baltic  Mills) 
Vincennes,  Ind. 

Hominy  Feed  

8046 

7.0 

8.0 

6.0 

Corn  product 

Evans  Milling  Company,  The,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 
Hominy  Feed  

20 

7.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Corn  product 

Ewing  Mill  Company,  Brownstown,  Ind. 
Hominy  Meal  ___ 

296 

7.5 

9.0 

6.0 

Corn  product 

Farmers  Hominy  Mill,  Seymour,  Ind. 

Farmers  Hominy  Feed 

8296 

7.5 

10.0 

3.0 

Corn  product 

Ferger  Grain  Company,  The,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 
Nutritia  Hominy  Meal  __  

8606 

7.8 

10.7 

7.0 

Corn  product 

Fisher  Bros.,  Evansville,  Ind. 

Diamond  Hominy  Feed  

8737 

6.0 

10.0 

7.0 

Corn  product 

Gienger  & Company,  John,  Jeffersonville,  Ind. 
Hominy  Feed 

1887 

7.0 

9.0 

5.0 

Corn  product 

Hall  Milling  Company,  W.  C.,  Brazil,  Ind. 

Hall’s  Hominy  Feed 

7482 

5.0 

9.5 

6.0 

Corn  product 

Hartman  & Sons,  Louis,  New  Albany,  Ind. 

“A”  Hominy  Feed 

2021 

7.0 

8.0 

9.0 

Corn  product 

Hayes.  Grain  & Commission  Company, 

Chicago,  111. 

Hayes  Brand  Hominy  Feed 

9267 

5.0 

9.0 

15.0 

Corn  product 

Huffstetter  & Gray,  Nabb,  Ind. 

Hominy  Feed — 

6828 

1.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Corn  product 

Hunter  & Company,  0.  L.,  Chicago,  111. 
Calumet  Hominy  Feed  

4417 

7.0 

8.5 

10.0 

Corn  product 

Hunter-Robinson-Wenz  Milling  Company, 

St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Capital  White  Hominy  Feed 

3921 

7.7 

11.0 

8.5 

Corn  product 

Kern  & Sons,  John  B.  A.,  Milwaukee,  Wis. 

Eagle  Hominy  Feed - - 

7419 

6.5 

10.5 

4.0 

Corn  product 

Kidder  & Company,  F.  L.,  Paris,  111. 

Peerless  Hominy  Feed 

2449 

7.5 

8.5 

4.5 

Corn  product 

Krause  Milling  Company,  Chas.  A., 

Milwaukee,  Wis. 

Badger  Hominy  Feed  _ 

5101 

6.0 

10.0 

5.0 

Corn  product 

93 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Kuhn  & Company,  Paul,  Terre  Haute,  Ind. 
Hominy  Feed  

2735 

7.7 

10.0 

5.0 

Corn  product 

Lafayette  Corn  Flour  Mills,  Lafayette,  Ind. 
Lafayette  Hominy  Feed __  

9272 

7.0 

10.0 

6.5 

Corn  product 

Louisville  Cereal  Mill  Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 
Hominy  Meal  

2020 

7.0 

9.0 

9.0 

Corn  product 

Masten,  Clarence  H.,  Amo,  Ind. 

Hominy  Feed  

6853 

7.0 

9.3 

10.0 

Corn  product 

Mead  Johnson  Company,  Evansville,  Ind. 
Mead’s  Hominy  Feed 

7760 

6.0 

10.0 

5.0 

Corn  product 

Merchants  Hay  & Grain  Company, 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Hominy  Feed  

4394 

6.0 

9.0 

5.0 

Corn  product 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Hominy  Feed 

7761 

6.0 

10.0 

10.0 

Corn  product 

National  Feed  Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 
“Hominy  Feed”  __  

3020 

7.0 

10.0 

10.0 

Corn  product 

Nebraska  Corn  Mills,  Lincoln,  Neb. 

Hominy  Feed  __  __ 

5984 

7.0 

8.0 

5.0 

Corn  product 

Noblesville  Milling  Company,  Noblesville,  Ind. 
Hominy  Chop  _ 

3309 

3.5 

9.5 

8.0 

Corn  product 

Perin  Bros.,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 

Hominy  Feed _ 

8721 

7.0 

10.0 

6.0 

Corn  product 

Pfeffer  Milling  Company,  Lebanon,  111. 

Pfeffer  Milling  Co.  Hominy  Feed  _ ... 

2617 

8.0 

10.0 

3.7 

Corn  product 

Pincoffs  Company,  Maurice,  Chicago,  111. 

Pinco  Brand  White  Hominy  Feed 

0584 

7.0 

8.5 

10.0 

Corn  product 

Prater-Mottier  Company,  Terre  Haute,  Ind. 
Praters  Hominy  Feed  __  __________ 

7647 

7.0 

9.5 

6.0 

Corn  product 

Raidt  Milling  Company,  F.,  Louisville,  Ky. 
Hominy  Meal  _ __  ___  

1920 

6.0 

8.0 

7.0 

Corn  product 

Ruoff,  Geo.  D.,  Osgood,  Ind. 

Hominy  Feed  _ __  _ 

4400 

7.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Corn  product 

Semans  Edible  Oils  Company,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 
“Indiana”  Hominy  Feed 

9004 

6.0 

10.0 

6.0 

Corn  product 

•Shields  & Blish,  Sardinia,  Ind. 

Colonial  Hominy  Feed 

9323 

7.0 

P.Q 

7.0 

Corn  product 

Shotwell  & Company,  Chas.  A., 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Blair’s  Hominy  Feed  

4420 

6.0 

9.0 

6.0 

Corn  product 

Stiefel  & Levy,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind. 

Hominy  Feed  _ _ _ 

7866 

6.5 

9.0 

7.0 

Corn  product 

Suckow  Company,  Franklin,  Ind. 

“Perfection”  Hominy  Feed  

5945 

7.5 

10.0 

7.0 

Corn  product 

Suffern-Hunt  Mills,  Decatur,  111. 

Acme  Hominy  Feed  _ _ _ _ 

9377 

6.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Corn  product 

94 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

DRIED  BEET  PULP 

Larrowe  Milling  Company,  Detroit,  Mich. 

Dried  Beet  Pulp 

2700 

0.5 

8.0 

20.0 

Dried  beet  pulp 

Small  & Company,  W.  H.,  Evansville,  Ind. 

Dried  Beet  Pulp 

3968 

0.5 

8.0 

20.0 

Dried  beet  pulp 

DRIED  BUTTERMILK 

Hales  & Edwards  Company,  Chicago,  111. 

Eatall  Dried  Buttermilk  

9293 

7.0 

25.0 

Dried  buttermilk 

ALFALFA  MEAL 

Alfalfa  Products  Company,  The,  Premont,  Neb. 
Alfalfa  Meal 

2951 

0.8 

10.0 

20.0 

Ground  alfalfa  hay 

American  Milling  Company,  Peoria,  111. 

Amco  Alfalfa  Meal _ __  

5390 

2.0 

13.0 

30.0 

Ground  alfalfa  hay 

Badenoch  Company,  J.  J.,  Chicago,  111. 

Alfalfa  Meal  

' 6535 

1.0 

13.0 

30.0 

Ground  alfalfa  hay 

Cyphers  Incubator  Company,  Chicago,  111. 
Alfalfa  Meal  

7636 

1.0 

12.0 

32.0 

Ground  alfalfa  hay 

Denver  Alfalfa  Milling  & Products  Company, 
Hartman,  Colo. 

Alfalfa  Meal  __  ___ 

7576 

1.5 

12.0 

35.0 

Ground  alfalfa  hay 

Dickinson  Company,  The  Albert,  Chicago,  111. 
Alfalfa  Meal  

2816 

1.0 

12.0 

30.0 

Ground  alfalfa  hay 

Dixie  Mills  Company,  East  St.  Louis,  111. 
Alfalfa  Meal  __  

5392 

1.0 

13.0 

30.0 

Ground  alfalfa  hay 

Edinger  & Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Arrow  Alfalfa  Meal  

8800 

1.0 

12.0 

35.0 

Ground  alfalfa  hay 

Emison  & Company,  J.  & S.,  (Baltic  Mills) 
Vincennes,  Ind. 

Alfalfa  Meal  

5401 

1.5 

12.0 

30.0 

Ground  alfalfa  hay 

Eairplay  Feed  Mills,  Linton,  Ind. 

Fairplay  Green  Feed 

6602 

1.0 

12.0 

30.0 

Ground  alfalfa  hay 

Golden  Grain  Milling  Company, 

East  St.  Louis,  111. 

Golden  Grain  Alfalfa  Meal 

6291 

1.5 

14.0 

30.0 

Ground  alfalfa  hay 

Grain  Belt  Mills  Company, 

South  St.  Joseph,  Mo. 

Grain  Belt  Brand  Alfalfa  Meal 

8777 

0.5 

12.0 

33.0 

Ground  alfalfa  hay 

Hales  & Edwards  Company,  Chicago,  111. 

Red  Comb  Alfalfa  Meal 

8120 

1.0 

13.5 

35.0 

Ground  alfalfa  hay 

Hanks  Company,  The  Howard  H.,  Chicago,  111. 
Golden  Egg  Alfalfa  Meal 

5821 

1.0 

13.5 

30.0 

Ground  alfalfa  hay 

Haywood  Alfalfa  Warehouse  Company,  The, 
Kansas  City,  Mo. 

Alfalfa  Meal  

5676 

1.0 

12.0 

35.0 

Ground  alfalfa  hay 

Hurst  & Company,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Alfalfa  Meal  __  - 

8484 

1.5 

12.0 

31.0 

Ground  alfalfa  hay 

95 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Kornfalfa  Feed  Milling  Company, 

Kansas  City,  Mo. 

Pioneer  Alfalfa  Meal  ___  

3727 

1.5 

12.0 

35.0 

Ground  alfalfa  hay 

Krause  Milling  Company,  Chas.  A., 

Milwaukee,  Wis. 

Alfalfa  Meal  _ 

7330 

1.0 

14.0 

30.0 

Ground  alfalfa  hay 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Alfalfa  Meal  

8079 

0.5 

12.0 

30.0 

Ground  alfalfa  hay 

National  Feed  Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Pure  Alfalfa  Meal - 

4720 

1.2 

13.5 

33.0 

Ground  alfalfa  hay 

Omaha  Alfalfa  Milling  Company,  Omaha,  Neb. 
Alfalfa  Meal  . _ 

8980 

1.0 

12.0 

35.0 

Ground  alfalfa  hay 

Peters  Mill  Company,  M.  C.,  Omaha,  Neb. 
“Lucem”  . 

3470 

0.5 

12.0 

33.0 

Ground  alfalfa  hay 

Potwin  Pure  Alfalfa  Meal  Company, 

Potwin,  Kansas 

Alfalfa  Meal  

2111 

1.5 

14.0 

15.0 

Alfalfa  products 

Purina  Mills,  Branch  Ralston  Purina  Company, 
St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Puriha  Alfalfa  Meal  . 

'7352 

1.5 

14.0 

29.0 

Ground  alfalfa  hay 

Quaker  Oats  Company,  The,  Chicago,  111. 
Alfalfa  Meal 

7089 

1.5 

14.0 

26.0 

Ground  alfalfa  hay 

Rapier  Grain  & Seed  Company,  Owensboro,  Ky. 
Alfalfa  Meal  

8207 

1.5 

12.0 

28.0 

Ground  alfalfa  hay 

Small  & Company,  W.  H.,  Evansville.  Ind. 
Alfalfa  Meal __  _ 

4177 

1.5 

13.5 

32.0 

Ground  alfalfa  hay 

Southern  Seed  Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Atlas  Alfalfa  Meal  

3560 

1.7 

15.0 

28.0 

Ground  alfalfa  hay 

Union  Grain  & Feed  Company,  The, 

Anderson,  Ind. 

Union  Alfalfa  Meal  

8435 

1.0 

12.0 

30.0 

Ground  alfalfa  hay 

United  States  Stock  Food  Company, 

Kansas  City,  Mo. 

Alfalfa  Meal  ...  _ 

6354 

1.2 

10.0 

30.0 

Ground  alfalfa  hay 

Wash-Co  Alfalfa  Mixed  Feed  & Milling  Com- 
pany, Fort  Calhoun,  Neb. 

Wash-Co  Alfalfa  Meal  _ . 

5477 

0.5 

12.0 

35.0 

Ground  alfalfa  hay 

Wichita  Alfalfa  Stock  Food  Company,  The, 
Wichita,  Kansas 

Wichita  Pure  Alfalfa  Meal 

3032 

2.0 

12.5 

30.0 

Alfalfa  product 

ANIMAL  BY-PRODUCTS 

Adams,  S.  0.,  Lynn,  Ind. 

My  Choice  Feeding  Tankage  

8007 

5.0 

50.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone 

Albany  Tanking  Company,  The,  Albany,  Ind. 
Feeding  Tankage 

7382 

5.0 

40.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone 

American  Agricultural  Chemical  Company,  The, 
New  York,  N.  Y. 

Pure  Ground  Meat  Scraps 

8106 

10.0 

55.0 

Meat  product 

Ground  Meat  Scraps 

8106 

10.0 

45.0 

— 

Meat  product 

Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Anderson  Fertilizer  Company,  Anderson,  Ind. 
Phillip’s  Feeding  Tankage 

8887 

8.0 

36.0 

5.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone,  intestinal  offal 

Angola  Reduction  Company,  Angola,  Ind. 
Tankage  __  _ 

5058 

8.0 

40.0 

2.2 

Meat  product 

Armour  Fertilizer  Works,  Chicago,  111. 

Armour’s  Blood  Meal  

4792 

80.0 

2.0 

Dried  blood 

Armour’s  Meat  Meal 

0263 

~6~0 

60.0 

2.0 

Meat  residues 

Ballard  Packing  Company,  Marion,  Ind. 
Feeding  Tankage 

5082 

8.0 

36.0 

Meat,  blood  and  bone 

Barnhard  Fertilizer  Company,  Lafayette,  Ind. 
Feeding  Tankage  _ _ 

8932 

10.0 

45.0 

5.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone,  stomach  offal 

Becker,  Gustave,  Peru,  Ind. 

Becker’s  Tankage  

9346 

15.0 

45.0 

3.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone,  intestinal  offal 

B.  & L.‘  Manufacturing  Company, 

Rensselaer,  Ind. 

Feeding  Tankage  ___  

8898 

11.0 

40.0 

25.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone 

'Blue  River  Reduction  Company,  Edinburg,  Ind. 
Feeding  Tankage 

7488 

16.0 

40.0 

6.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone 

Brook  Flour  & Feed  Mill,  Brook,  Ind. 

Rising  Sun  Brand  Digester  Tankage 

8221 

5.0 

60.0 

5.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone 

Brown  Brothers,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

“Circle  B”  (B)  

8502 

9.0 

40.0 



Meat,  blood,  bone 

Buhner  Fertilizer  Company,  Seymour,  Ind. 
Buhner’s  Feeding  Tankage 

8671 

8.0 

45.0 



Meat,  blood,  bone 

Caldwell  Tanking  Company,  Muncie,  Ind. 
Feeding  Tankage 

9172 

8.0 

50.0 



Meat,  blood,  bone 

Cavanaugh  Packing  Company,  Muncie,  Ind. 
Feeding  Tankage  

7734 

6.0 

30.0 



Meat,  blood,  bone 

Butler  & Company,  Edw.  J.,  Chicago,  111. 
Butlers  Premium  Digester  Tankage  _ 

7990 

6.0 

60.0 

5.0 

Meat  residue,  blood,  bone 

Chicago  Feed  & Fertilizer  Company, 

Chicago,  111. 

Magic  Brand  Meat  Scrap 

8621 

5.0 

50.0 

3.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone 

Magic  Brand  Digester  Tankage 

8880 

2.0 

60.0 

3.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone 

Clendenin  & Company,  Richmond,  Ind. 

Feeding  Tankage 

2132 

13.0 

45.0 



Meat  product 

Clinton  Manufacturing  Company, 

Frankfort,  Ind. 

CM  C Mftat  and  Bnna  Meal 

5547 

12.0 

45.0 

Meat  and  bone  product 

Clinton  Tankage  

9176 

10.0 

40.0 

To 

Meat,  blood,  bone,  stomach  offal 

Columbus  Sanitary  Reduction  Company, 
Columbus,  Ind. 

Feeding  Tankage  

8182 

15.0 

45.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone 

Connelly,  Clare,  Judson,  Ind. 

Tankage  — _ — 

6864 

6.0 

38.0 

— 

Meat,  blood,  bone 

Cyphers  Incubator  Company,  Buffalo,  N.  T. 
Beef  Scrap  

4271 

10.0 

45.0 



Meat  product 

97 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


■ 

Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

s 

^ S3 

O 

III 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Darling  & Company,  Chicago,  111. 

Darling’s  00%  Digester  Tankage 

4731 

0.5 

60.0 

3.0 

Meat  product 

Darling’s  Meat  Crisps 

5436 

0.5 

75.0 

3.0 

Meat  product 

Darling’s  Granulated  Bone 

5858 

0.5 

20.0 

3.0 

Bone  product 

Darling’s  Blood  Meal — 

6309 

80.0 

Dried  blood 

Darling’s  Meat  Scraps  

9077 

6.5 

50.0 

3.6 

Meat  products 

Meat  Scraps  and  Sand 

9250 

0.5 

50.0 

3.0 

Meat  residue,  less  than  2V£%  sand 

Daudistel,  Henry,  Evansville,  Ind. 

Feeding  Tankage 

8599 

8.0 

40.0 



Meat,  blood,  bone 

Decatur  Fertilizer  Company,  Decatur,  R.  R.  1, 
Ind. 

Tankage  - — 

7438 

7.0 

35.0 

9.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone,  intestinal  offal 

De  Kalb  Tanking  Company, 

Auburn  Junction,  Ind. 

Feeding  Tankage 

8938 

8.0 

25.0 

8.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone,  intestinal  offal 

Delphi  Fertilizer  Company,  The,  Delphi,  Ind. 
Feeding  Tankage  . - _ — 

8052 

12.0 

35.0 

1.8 

Meat,  blood,  bone,  intestinal  offal 

Dewey  Bros.  Company,  The,  Blanchester,  Ohio 
Dewey’s  Digester  Tankage  

7152 

8.0 

60.0 

3.0 

Meat  residues  containing  6%  phos- 

Dold Packing  Company,  Jacob,  Buffalo,  N.  Y. 
Dold  Quality  Poultry  Bone  __  _ 

4017 

5.0 

24.0 

phates 

Bones  containing  55%  phosphates 

Dold  Quality  Digester  Tankage  . 

4018 

10.0 

32.0 

~3T6 

Meat  product 

Dold  Quality  Meat  Meal 

4019 

10.0 

00.0 

3.0 

Meat  product 

Dryfus  Packing  & Provision  Company, 
Lafayette,  Ind. 

Feeding  Tankage  _ 

j 7322 

10.0 

30.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone 

Early  & Daniel  Company,  The,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 
Digester  Tankage  . _ 

8498 

50.0 

Meat  residues 

Eckart  Packing  Company,  Fred, 

Fort  Wayne,  Ind. 

Eckart’s  Feeding  Tankage 

0065 

9.0 

28.0 

5.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone 

Elkhart  Fertilizer  Company,  Elkhart,  Ind.47 
Feeding  Tankage  

6604 

8.0 

44.0 

7.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone 

Emge  & Sons,  Peter,  Fort  Branch,  Ind. 

Feeding  Tankage  _ ...  _ 

7749 

10.0 

25.0 

4.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone,  intestinal  offal 

Evansville  Packing  Company,  The, 

Evansville,  Ind. 

60%  “Feeding  Tankage”  

8298 

8.0 

00. 0 

3.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone 

Flora  Fertilizer  Plant,  Flora,  Ind. 

Feeding  Tankage  

7815 

12.0 

35.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone,  stomach  offal 

Fortville  Rendering  Plant,  Fortville,  Ind. 
Feeding  Tankage „ ... 

8613 

14.0 

65.0 

1.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone 

Fountain  Fertilizer  Company,  Veedersburg,  Ind. 
Fountain  Brand  Tankage  __  ... 

9322 

6.0 

38.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone 

Goeke  Company,  Edward  F.,  Evansville,  Ind. 
Feeding  Tankage  

9082 

8.0 

33.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone,  stomach  offal 

Goldreich  Fertilizer  Company,  Marion,  Ind. 
“Feeding  Tankage”.  

■ 9138 

10.0 

40.0 

3.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone,  intestinal  offal 

47  Succeeded  by  Elkhart  County  Fertilizer  Co.,  Wakarusa 


98 

Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


LABEL 


Hammond  Standish  & Company,  Detroit,  Mich. 
“Digesto”  

Hancock  Fertilizer  Company,  The, 

Greenfield,  Ind. 

Feeding  Tankage  


Hartman  & Dotterer,  Bluffton,  Ind. 
Digester  Tankage  


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


Heppe  & Sons  Company,  Wm., 
Logansport,  Ind. 

Feeding  Tankage 


Hine  Bros.  Company,  Chicago,  111. 

Meat  & Bone  

Beef  Scraps  

Poultry  Bone  


Home  Packing  & Ice  Company, 
TerTe  Haute,  Ind. 

Digester  Meat  & Bone  Tankage 


Hoosier  Packing  Company,  The,  Decatur,  Ind. 
Feeding  Tankage  


Hopkins  Fertilizer  Company,  New  Albany,  Ind. 
Poultry  Bone  


Hughes-Curry  Packing  Company, 
Anderson,  Ind. 

Feeding  Tankage  


Huntington  Fertilizer  Company, 
Huntington,  Ind. 

Farmers  Commercial  Feeding  Tankage 


Ideal  Rendering  Company,  North  Wales,  Pa. 
Ideal  Meat  Scraps  


Independent  Feed  & Fertilizer  Company, 
Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Clover  Leaf  Digester  Tankage 

Digester  Tankage,  Clover  Leaf 

Superior  Tankage  


International  Glue  Company,  Boston,  Mass. 
Red  Star  Brand  Fish  Scrap 


Interstate  Rendering  Company,  Chicago,  111. 
Animal  Tankage 


“Abattoir  Brand”  Poultry  Bone 
Abattoir  Brand— Digester  Tankage 
Abattoir  Brand— Meat  Scraps 


Kendallville  Fertilizer  Company, 
Kendallville,  Ind. 

Tankage  


Kenney  Bros.  Reduction  Company,  Lowell,  Ind. 
Tankage  

Kingan  & Company,  Ltd.,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Kingan’s  Digester  Tankage 

Kingan’s  Digester  Tankage  “Marion  Brand”- 


Official  No. 

JNotless  tnan 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

JNot  less  tnan 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

IN  ot  more  tnan 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

9285 

3.0 

60.0 

3.0 

Blood  meal,  meat  scraps,  bones,  con- 
centrated tankage 

7659 

6.0 

40.0 

4.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone 

9409 

5.4 

68.0 

3.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone 

7590 

7.0 

45.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone 

4280 

8.0 

40.0 

Meat  scraps,  bone 

4281 

8.0 

50.0 

Meat  product 

4519 

— 

26.0 

Raw  bones  containing  55%  phos- 
phates 

7460 

10.0 

32.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone 

7992 

8.0 

28.0 

5.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone,  intestinal  offal 

3643 

20.0 

Bone  product 

. 7374 

8.0 

40.0 

3.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone 

. 8876 

15.0 

40.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone 

- 8962 

14.0 

155.0 

2.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone 

- 

- 7553 

6.0 

60.0 

3.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone 

- 8608 

6.0 

60.0 

3.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone 

- 8664 

9.0 

40.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone 

- 7166 

2.0 

45.0 

1.0 

Ground  fish  scrap 

- 8930 

4.0 

40.0 

— 

Meat,  blood,  bone,  stomach  and  irj 
testinal  offal 

5 

6792 

2.0 

25.0 

3.0 

Bones  containing  55%  phosphates 

- 8616 

1.0 

60.0 

3.0 

Meat  product 

. 8616 

1.0 

55.0 

3.0 

Meat  product 

_ 8808 

7.0 

50.0 

1.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone 

7192 

11.0 

44.0 

— 

Meat,  blood  and  bone  products 

8574 

6.0 

60.0 

6.0 

Meat  residue,  evaporated  tank  wat< 

- 8886 

6.0 

50.0 

5.0 

Meat  residue,  evaporated  tank  waw 

99 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


LABEL 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


'■"o 

|2 

a v 


CO  (3  Pi 
V <D  „ 

— 1 

i_5  . Tj 

IgS 

ft  o 


2 

Sg® 

*7  2 ^ 

ai  a o 


and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Kramer,  Harry  A.,  Rushville,  Ind. 

Tankage  i 

Kuhner  Packing  Company,  Muncie,  Ind. 
Kuhner’s  Tankage  

Lebanon  Reduction  Company, 
Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Feeding  Tankage  

Maher  Cold  Storage,  J.  F.,  Richmond,  Ind 
Feeding  Tankage  — 

Major  Bros.  Packing  Company, 
Mishawaka,  Ind. 

Blood  Meal  


8779 

8464 

9011 

8952 

1971 


9.3 

5.0 

10.0 

5.0 

1.0 


23.4 

30.0 

42.0 

28.0 

55.0 


5.0 

4.0 

6.0 

3.0 

5.0 


Meat  and  bone  tankage,  stomach 
offal 

Meat,  blood,  bone,  stomach  offal 


Meat,  blood,  bone,  intestinal  offal 
Meat,  blood,  bone 

Dried  blood 


Manns’  Fertilizer  Works,  North  Manchester,  Ind. 
Manns’  Feeding  Tankage 


7062 


15.0 


45.0 


Meier  Packing  Company,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 
Feeding  Tankage  


9224 


28.0 


Mitchell  & Mitchell,  Martinsville,  R.  R.  9,  Ind. 
Feeding  Tankage  


7.0  30.0 


Monroe  Tanking  Company,  Bloomington,  Ind. 
Monroe  Tankage  


15.0 


45.0 


Monticello  Fertilizer  Company,  Monticello,  Ind. 
Feeding  Tankage  


10.0 


40.0 


Montpelier  Fertilizer  Company, 
Huntington,  Ind. 

Farmers  Commercial  Feeding  Tankage 


5766 


24.0 


49.0 


Meat,  blood,  bone 


Meat,  blood,  bone,  stomach  offal, 
not  over  2%  sand 

Meat,  blood,  bone,  intestinal  offal 

Meat,  blood,  bone 

Meat,  blood,  bone,  stomach  offal 

Meat,  blood,  bone 


Morris  & Company,  Chicago,  111. 

Big  Brand  40%  Digester  Tankage 

Big  Brand  Poultry  Bone 

Big  Brand  Meat  Scraps 

Big  Brand  Meat  Meal 

Big  Sixty  Meat  Meal  Digester  Tankage.. 
Big  Fifty  Meat  Meal  Digester  Tankage- 
Big  Thirty  Feeding  Tankage 

Muncie  Tanking  Company,  Muncie,  Ind. 
Feeding  Tankage  


4223 

6816 

6905 

0906 

8155 

9198 

9229 


8.0  40.0 

....  23.0 

7.0  55.0 

7.0  50.0 

6.0  60.0 

6.0  50.0 

3.0  30.0 


5.0 


5.0 

5.0 

5.0 

5.0 

10.0 


Meat  product 

Bone  product  containing  55%  phos- 
phates 
Meat  residue 
Meat  residue 
Meat  product 
Meat  product 

Meat,  blood,  bone,  intestinal  offal 


8428 


10.0 


Meat,  blood,  bone 


McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 
McCoys  Choice  Hog  Digester  Tankage 

McCoys  Fancy  Beef  Scraps  

Fancy  Meat  & Bone 


5223 

5312 

8463 


60.0 

6.0  50.0 

8.0  42.0 


McKenzie  & Company,  J.  H.,  Brazil,  R.  R.  8, 
Ind. 

Tankage  

New  Castle  Tanking  Company,  New  Castle,  Ind. 
Feeding  Tankage  


8.0  55.0 


10.0 


40.0 


Meat  product 
Meat  product 
Meat  and  bone  product 


2.0  Meat,  blood,  bone 


8.0  Meat,  blood,  bone,  intestinal  offal 


Newton  County  Reduction  Plant, 
Kentlapd,  Ind. 

Pendergrass  Hog  Tankage 


8554 


10.0 


Meat,  blood,  bone,  intestinal  offal 


• North  Manchester  Fertilizer  Company, 
North  Manchester,  Ind. 

Mann’s  Digester  Feeding  Tankage  ... 


9270 


15.0 


45.0 


Meat,  blood,  bone 


IOO 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1913  (continued) 


LABEL 


Odon  Reduction  Company,  Odon,  Ind. 
Tankage  


Pearl  Packing  House,  The,  Madison,  Ind. 
The  Pearl  Brand  


Pitman,  H.  E.,  Bedford,  Ind. 

Meat  Scraps  and  less  than  2%  Sand. 
Tankage  


Portland  Fertilizer  Plant,  Portland,  Ind. 
Black’s  Tankage  


Price,  L.,  Converse,  Ind. 
Feeding  Tankage 


Rauh  & Sons  Animal  Feed  Company,  E., 
Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Rauh’s  Meat  Scraps  for  Poultry 

Rauh’s  Digester  Tankage  for  Hogs 

Rauh’s  Digester  Tankage 

Rauh’s  Meat  Meal 

Meatall  

Meatone  

Meat  Flakes  

Meato  

Meatone  Tankage  for  Hogs 


Meato  Scraps  for  Poultry 
00%  Digestall  Tankage  — 


Roberts,  Robert  A.,  Greensburg,  Ind. 
Feeding  Tankage  


Roby  Bros.,  Winchester,  R.  R.  4,  Ind. 
Roby  Bros.  Feeding  Tankage 


Rochester  Fertilizer  & Tankage  Company,48 
Rochester,  Ind. 

Pure  Tankage S 

Feeding  Tankage  


Routh  & Company,  W.  C.,  Logansport,  Ind. 
Routh’s  Best  Feeding  Tankage 


Scott,  James  L. Feighner  Fertilizer  Company 
Wabash,  Ind. 

Feeding  Tankage  


Southern  Seed  Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 
Atlas  Beef  Scrap  


Spratt’s  Patent,  Ltd.,  Newark,  N.  J. 
Crissel  


St.  Louis  Independent  Packing  Company, 
St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Independent  Brand  Digester  Tankage... 


Stolle  & Sons,  Anton,  Richmond,  Ind. 
Stolle’s  Feeding  Tankage 


Sullivan  Reduction  Company, 
Farmersburg,  Ind. 

Feeding  Tankage  


Official  No. 

Guaranteed  b; 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

8575 

12.0 

40'.  0 

; 

9015 

5.0 

37.0 

3.0  : 

9067 

5.0 

55.0 

3.o  : 

9068 

0.5 

60.0 

3.0  : 

7887 

7.0 

40.0 

9.0 

4906 

10.0 

45.0 

5.0 

7246 

50.0 

7308 



60.0 



7618 



50.0 



8068 



80.0 



8086 



05.0 



8087 



50.0 



8289 



75.0 



8290 



75.0 



9286 

50.0 

. 9287 



50.0 



. 9431 

60.0 

. -5602 

5.0 

20.0 

3.0 

. 7662 

17.0 

40.0 

2.6 

8196 

10.0 

50.0 

9010 

7.0 

50.0 

To 

. 3575 

— 

60.0 

. 9320 

8.0 

40.0 

3.0 

. 3568 

5.0 

55.0 

. 0037 

11.0 

43.0 

2.0 

. 7204 

8.0 

60.0 

3.0 

. 7586 

6.0 

34.0 

.... 

. 9339 

10.0 

45.0 



and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Meat,  blood,  bone,  less  than  2%  sand 
Meat,  blood,  bone,  stomach  offal, 
less  than  2%  sand 

Meat,  blood,  bone,  intestinal  offal 
Meat,  bone  and  blood  products 


Meat  product 
Meat  product 
Meat  product 
Meat  product 
Meat  product 
Meat  product 
Meat  product 
Meat  product 

Meat,  blood,  bone,  containing  some 
sand,  stomach  offal 
Meat  scraps,  bone,  containing  some 
sand,  stomach  offal 
Meat,  blood,  bone,  containing  some 
sand,  stomach  offal 

Meat,  blood,  bone 
Meat,  blood,  bone 


Meat,  blood,  bone 
Meat,  blood,  bone 


Meat  and  blood  product 

Meat,  blood,  bone 
Meat  product 
Meat  product 

Meat  residues,  scraps 
Meat,  blood,  bone 

Meat,  blood,  bone,  intestinal  offal 


48  Succeeded  by  Abe  Berebitskey 


IOI 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Swift  & Company,  Chicago,  111. 

Swift’s  Meat  Scraps 

9055 

6.0 

50.0 

3.0 

Meat  residues 

Swift’s  Digester  Tankage 

©128 

5.0 

60.0 

3.0 

Meat  residues 

Swift’s  Soluble  Blood  Flour  _ 

9189 



80.0 

3.0 

Ground  dried  blood 

Swift’s  Blood  Meal  __  __ 

9190 

80.0 

3.0 

Ground  dried  blood 

Swift’s  Meat  Meal  

9101 

4.0 

46.0 

3.0 

Meat  residues 

Swift’s  Poultry  Bone  

9102 

2.0 

25.0 

3.0 

Ground  bone 

Terre  Haute  Grease  & Tallow  Factory, 

Terre  Haute,  Ind. 

Tankage  

8837 

6.5 

40.0 

— 

Meat,  blood,  bone 

Terre  Haute  Hide  & Fertilizer  Company,. 

Terre  Haute,  Ind. 

Feeding  Tankage 

8820 

8.5 

62.0 

— — 

Meat,  blood,  bone 

Warsaw  Fertilizer  & Tanking  Company, 
Warsaw,  Ind. 

Tankage  

Ward  & Company,  Montgomery,  Chicago,  111. 

8066 

3.0 

40.0 

— 

Meat  product 

Blood  Meal  

3085 

87.0 

Dried  blood 

Poultry  Bone 

3036 

4.0 

26.0 

50~0 

Meat  residues 

Beef  Scraps 

3037 

8.0 

55.0 

8.0 

Meat  residues 

Beef  Meal 

3038 

6.0 

40.0 

10.0 

Meat  residues 

Soluble  Blood  Flour  . 

3089 

87.0 

Dried  blood 

Digester  Tankage 

3040 

8.0 

60^0 

Meat  residues 

Western  Packing  & Provision  Company, 

Union  Stock  Yards,  Chicago,  111. 

Western  Digester  Tankage  _ 

8549 

6.0 

00.0 

3.0 

Meat  products 

Whitley  County  Tankage  Company, 

Columbia  City,  Ind. 

Feeding  Tankage  

8828 

8.0 

40.0 

5.0 

Meat,  blood,  bone,  intestinal  offal 

Wilson  & Company,  Inc.,  Chicago,  111. 

Wilson’s  High  Protein  Tankage 

9403 

6.0 

60.0 

5.0 

Meat  product 

Wilson  Provision  Company,  Peoria,  111. 

Wilson’s  Digester  Tankage 

6755 

6.0 

45.0 

1.0 

Meat  product 

Worm  & Company,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Eureka  Concentrated  Hog  Feed 

Wuichet  Fertilizer  Company,  The,  Dayton,  0. 

8202 

11.0 

36.4 

6.5 

Meat,  blood,  bone 

Ground  Beef  Scrap 

3058 

10.0 

50.0 

2.0 

Meat  product 

Stock  Tankage  

4169 

10.0 

40.0 

5.0 

Meat  meal,  bone 

60%  Tankage  __  ___  __  ...  

PROPRIETARY  AND  MOLASSES  FEED 

8175 

5.0 

60.0 

5.0 

Meat  product 

Acme-Evans  Company,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Acme  Horse  & Mule  Feed  ___  _ 

5636 

4.0 

10.0 

9.0 

Corn,  oats,  y2%  salt 

E-Z  Dairy  Feed  

6683 

3.5 

16.0 

12.0 

Corn,  wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings, 
cottonseed  meal,  hominy  feed,  brew- 
ers dried  grains,  linseed  oil  meal, 
oat  hulls,  y2%  salt 

Acme  Molasses  Grain  Feed 

6867 

2.0 

9.0 

15.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

Acme  Dairy  Feed  - 

7318 

6.0 

20.0 

7.5 

Brewers  dried  grains,  cottonseed 
meal,  wheat  middlings,  corn  feed 
meal,  winter  wheat  bran,  linseed 
meal,  hominy  feed,  y2%  salt 

Acme  Stock  Feed 

9401 

3.2 

8.5 

13.0 

Corn,  homlik,  (corn  feed  meal) 
wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  hom- 
iny meal,  oat  feed,  (oat  middlings, 
oat  hulls),  salt 

102 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


LABEL 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


Acme-Jones  Company,  Inc.,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Big  X Dairy  Peed 

Alfalfa  Products  Company,  The,  Premont,  Neb. 
Alfalfa-Lass  

Alfocorn  Milling  Company,  East  St.  Louis,  111. 

Alfocorn  Horse  & Mule  Peed 

Alfocorn  Corn  & Oat  Chops 

Leader  Horse  & Mule  Peed 

X-Tra  Oats  Horse  & Mule  Peed 


Alfocorn  Dairy  Feed 


King  Cotton  Horse  & Mule  Peed 


Alfa-Oats  Horse  & Mule  Peed 
Pull  Pail  Dairy  Peed 


Allan,  J.  P.,  Farmersburg,  Ind. 
Allans  Horse  Peed 


Special  Horse  Peed 
Hexite  Horse  Peed 
Homco  Horse  Peed 
Hexite  Dairy  Peed  . 


Special  Hog  Peed 
Homco  Dairy  Peed 
Homco  Hog  Peed  . 


American  Milling  Company,  Peoria,  111. 

Amco  Alfalfa  Molasses  Feed 

Sucrene  Horse  Peed,  with  Alfalfa 


Amco  Pat  Maker  __ 
Peoria  Horse  Peed  . 

Sucrene  Dairy  Feed 


Tip  Top  Sugared  Peed 


Amco  Dairy  Feed 


Official  No. 

in  ox.  xess  man 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

jnoi  less  man 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

jNot  more  man 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

9264 

4.2 

17.0 

15.0 

Velvet  bean  meal  feed,  com  feed 
meal,  cottonseed  meal,  oat  mid- 
dlings, oat  hulls,  salt 

2947 

0.8 

10.0 

20.0 

Alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

5837 

2.5 

10.5 

15.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal 

0917 

3.0 

10.0 

10.0 

Corn,  oats 

6994 

1.5 

9.0 

16.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

7818 

2.0 

9.0 

13.5 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  %%  salt, 
molasses 

7810 

2.0 

9.0 

13.5 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  %%  salt, 
molasses 

7076 

4.5 

25.0 

15.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  distillers  dried 
grains,  alfalfa  meal,  corn  gluten 
feed,  molasses 

8042 

1.5 

9.0 

15.0 

Corn,  alfalfa  meal,  clipped  oat  by- 
product, clipped  barley  by-product, 
molasses 

8648 

2.0 

9.0 

13.5 

Oats,  alfalfa  meal,  y2%  salt,  mo- 
lasses 

9153 

3.0 

16.0 

15.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  clipped  oat  by- 
product, brewers  dried  grains,  al- 
falfa meal,  ground  and  bolted 
wheat  screenings,  molasses 

8237 

1.5 

8.0 

10.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa,  molasses 

I 6727 

1.0 

7.0 

18.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa,  molasses 

8490 

1.5 

10.0 

14.0 

Corn,  rolled  oats,  alfalfa,  molasses 

8537 

2.5 

10.0 

10.0 

Corn,  rolled  oats,  alfalfa,  molasses 

_ 8647 

3.5 

16.0 

14.0 

Wheat  bran,  hominy  feed,  cottonseed 
meal,  velvet  bean  feed  meal,  alfalfa, 
molasses 

_ 8691 

4.0 

14.0 

12.5 

Wheat  middlings,  hominy  feed,  vel 
vet  bean  feed  meal,  alfalfa,  mo- 
lasses 

. 8725 

4.0 

20.0 

14.0 

Wheat  bran,  cottonseed  meal,  velvet 
bean  feed,  linseed  meal,  alfalfa,  mo- 

- 9316 

4.0 

16.0 

12.0 

Hominy  feed,  rye  middlings,  velvet 
bean  feed  meal,  tankage,  alfalfa, 
molasses 

- 5663 

0.5 

10.0 

26.0 

Alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

- 8246 

2.5 

10.0 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  barley,  alfalfa,  corn  dis- 
tillers solubles,  salt,  molasses 

..  8249 

3.5 

10.0 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  distillers  dried 
grains  and  solubles,  clipped  oat  by- 
product, salt,  molasses 

_ 8318 

2.5 

10.0 

14.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  distillers  dried 
grains  and  solubles,  alfalfa  meal, 
oat  middlings,  oat  shorts,  oat  hulls, 
salt,  molasses 

- 8726 

3.5 

16.5 

L4.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  corn  gluten  feed, 
ground  and  bolted  wheat  screen- 
ings, clipped  oat  by-product,  corn 
distillers  dried  grains  and  solubles, 
palm  kernel  meal,  calcium  carbon- 
ate, salt,  molasses 

..  8727 

2.5 

12.0 

14.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  corn  distillers  dried 
grains  and  solubles,  palm  kernel 
meal,  ground  and  bolted  wheat 
screenings,  clipped  oat  by-product, 
calcium  carbonate,  salt,  molasses 
Cottonseed  meal,  corn  distillers  dried 
grains  and  solubles,  palm  kernel 
meal,  clipped  oat  by-product,  corn 
gluten  feed,  calcium  carbonate,  salt 

„ 8728 

8.0 

25.0 

16.0 

103 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


— 

Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

American  Milling  Company,  Peoria,  111. 

Sucrene  Hog  Meal 

8729 

4.0 

18.0 

14.0 

Alfalfa  meal,  corn  feed  meal,  corn 

Kick-A-Poo  Horse  Feed 

8850 

3.0 

10.0 

12.0 

germ  meal,  corn  distillers  dried 
grains  and  solubles,  linseed  meal, 
blood  flour,  palm  kernel  meal,  cal- 
cium carbonate,  salt,  molasses 

Rolled  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  salt,  mo- 

Amco Stock  Feed 

8858 

3.5 

10.0 

9.0 

lasses 

Corn  germ  meal,  corn  feed  meal,  cot- 

Tip Top  Horse  Feed,  with  Alfalfa 

9049 

2.5 

10.0 

12.0 

tonseed  meal,  corn  gluten  feed,  oat 
middlings,  oat  hulls,  salt 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa,  salt,  molasses 

Sucrene  Horse  & Mule  Feed 

9050 

2.5 

9.0 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  oat  middlings,  oat 
shorts,  oat  hulls,  salt,  molasses 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa,  salt,  molasses 

Arcady  Farms  Milling  Company,  Rondout,  111. 
Arcady  Horse  Feed  __  

6204 

2.0 

9.0 

12.0 

(R.  K.  D.)  Arcady  Hog  Meal 

7968 

5.0 

18.0 

10.0 

Wheat  middlings,  linseed  oil  meal, 

Sunkist  Dairy  Feed 

8782 

3.5 

12.5 

15.0 

corn  germ  meal,  corn  feed  meal, 
digester  tankage,  ground  screenings 
from  wheat,  oats,  barley  and  flax, 
charred  peat,  %%  salt,  molasses 
Cottonseed  meal,  ground  screenings 

Arcady  (R  K D)  Dairy  Feed 

8802 

3.5 

16.0 

15.0 

from  wheat,  barley,  oats  and  flax, 
ground  and  bolted  clipped  oat  by- 
product, ground  cocoa  shell  meal, 
salt,  molasses 

Cottonseed  meal,  corn  gluten  meal, 

Arcady  (R.  K.  D.)  Fatner _ 

8870 

3.0 

10.0 

15.0 

malt  sprouts,  brewers  dried  grains, 
cocoa  shell  meal,  ground  and  bolted 
clipped  oat  by-product,  ground  and 
bolted  screenings  from  wheat,  oats, 
barley  and  flax,  salt,  molasses 

Corn  gluten  feed,  corn  oil  cake  meal, 

Arcady  (R.  K.  D.)  Stock  Feed 

8871 

3.5 

10.0 

15.0 

cottonseed  meal,  corn  feed  meal, 
ground  oats,  oat  middlings,  oat 
shorts,  oat  hulls,  old  process  linseed 
oil  meal,  1%  salt,  molasses 

Com  oil  cake  meal,  linseed  oil  meal, 

Country  Gentlemen  Horse  Feed  _ ... 

9180 

2.0 

9.0 

12.0 

hominy  feed,  wheat  bran,  wheat 
middlings,  ground  oats,  corn  feed 
meal,  oat  middlings,  oat  shorts, 
oat  hulls,  1%  salt 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa,  salt,  molasses 

Certified  Dairy  Ration _ 

9332 

4.5 

25.0 

12.0 

Oats,  brewers  dried  grains,  malt 

ishbrook  Company,  The  J.  S.,  Mattoon,  111. 
Peerless  Horse  Ration 

5209 

2.0 

9.5 

7.5 

sprouts,  corn  gluten  feed,  cotton- 
seed meal,  wheat  bran,  wheat  mid- 
dlings with  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  to  exceed  mill  run,  corn  oil  cake 
meal,  old  process  linseed  oil  meal, 
salt 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

Diamond  A.  Horse  Feed 

6416 

2.0 

9.0 

16.0 

Com,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

Jumbo  Mixed  Feed 

6947 

2.0 

8.0 

16.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  corn  bran, 

Peerless  Cow  Feed 

8002 

3.0 

15.0 

12.0 

kafir  corn  bran,  molasses 

Corn,  wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings, 

Badenoch  Company,  J.  J.,  Chicago,  111. 

Kumboss  Dairy  Feed  _ 

6222 

0.5 

10.0 

25.0 

cottonseed  meal,  alfalfa  meal,  oat 
middlings,  oat  shorts,  oat  hulls, 
molasses 

Alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

Kurvnek  Horse  Feed 

7060 

3.0 

10.0 

8.0 

Com,  oats,  barley 

Graingold  Dairy  Feed 

8831 

5.0 

26.0 

14.0 

Oats,  hominy  feed,  cottonseed  meal, 

Badenoch’s  Stock  Feed 

9012 

3.0 

8.0 

14.0 

old  process  oil  meal,  alfalfa  meal, 
corn  gluten  feed,  wheat  bran  with 
ground  wheat  screenings  not  to  ex- 
ceed mill  run,  1%  salt 

Hominy  feed,  corn  feed  meal,  oat 

Gloskoat  Horse  Feed  _ 

9107 

2.0 

10.0 

12.0 

middlings,  oat  shorts,  oat  hulls,  salt 
Corn,  oats,  barley,  alfalfa  meal,  mo- 

lasses 

104 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent, 
crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Bartlett  Company,  The  J.  E.,  Jackson,  Mich. 

Bartlett’s  Malt  Dairy  Feed 

Bauermeister  Company,  Inc.,  Chas.  W., 

Terre  Haute,  Ind. 

8404 

5.0 

21.0 

20.0 

Corn,  malt,  malt  sprouts 

Bauermeister ’s  Horse  Feed 

Belt  Elevator  & Feed  Company, 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

5982 

4.0 

14.0 

5.0 

Corn,  hominy  feed,  corn  gluten  meal, 
wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  cot- 
tonseed meal,  brewers  dried  grains, 
linseed  oil  meal,  (old  process) 

Alfalfa  Mixed  Feed 

3818 

2.7 

9.0 

15.5 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa,  molasses 

Big  4 Elevator  Company,  Mattoon,  111. 

Big  3 Horse  Feed  _ 

Big  Four  Elevator  & Milling  Company, 
Mattoon,  111. 

8692 

2.1 

10.0 

16.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

Big  4 Horse  Feed 

6963 

2.7 

9.7 

8.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

Blanton  Milling  Company,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Blanton’s  Pig  Feed  

7378 

3.0 

13.5 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings,  low  grade  flour 

Blatchford  Calf  Meal  Factory,  Waukegan,  111. 

Blatchford’s  Hog  Ration 

Bloomington  Milling  Company,  The, 
Bloomington,  Ind. 

7605 

7.5 

15.2 

6.7 

Barley  meal,  linseed  oil  meal,  wheat 
flour,  rice  meal,  locust  bean  meal, 
cocoa  shell  meal,  bean  meal 

Mixed  Feed  

Brizius  Company,  Chas.  W.,  Newburgh,  Ind. 

8786 

3.0 

13.0 

10.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  whole  wheat 
screenings,  corn  bran,  cottonseed 
meal,  brewers  dried  grains,  alfalfa 
meal,  clipped  oat  by-product,  corn 
feed  meal,  ground  flaxseed  screen 
ings 

Log  Cabin  Horse  Feed — 

7980 

2.0 

9.0 

16.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

Mack’s  Mixed  Feed 

Brook  Flour  & Feed  Mill,  Brook,  Ind. 

0411 

2.0 

8.0 

16.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  corn  bran, 
molasses 

Rising  Sun  Pig  & Poultry  Feed 

Brown,  George,  Evansville,  Ind. 

8388 

3.0 

12.0 

11.0 

Corn,  corn  feed  meal,  corn  bran, 
wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings,  alfalfa  meal,  linseed 
oil  meal,  tankage,  (meat,  blood, 
bone,  intestinal  offal),  blood  meal, 
salt 

Dan  Patch  Horse  Feed  

Brown  Molasses  Food  Company, 

Anderson,  Ind. 

5318 

3.5 

10.0 

8.0 

Corn,  oats,  wheat  bran,  salt 

Bro-Mo-Co  Molasses  Dairy  Feed 

Brudi  & Company,  Jos.,  New  Haven,  Ind. 

8047 

3.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  sorghum  cane  meal, 
sorghum  seed  meal,  salt,  molasses 

Bell  Cow  Dairy  Feed - 

Buckeye  Grain  & Milling  Company,  The, 
Columbus,  Ohio 

8016 

3.5 

16.5 

11.0 

Corn,  oats,  brewers  dried  grains, 
wheat  bran,  corn  gluten  feed,  al-  j 
falfa  meal,  cottonseed  meal,  linseed 
oil  meal,  ground  wheat  screenings, 
salt,  molasses 

Alcorn  

Butler  & Company,  Edw.  J.,  Chicago,  111. 

5084 

3.0 

10.0 

14.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  brewers 
dried  grains,  oat  middlings,  oat 
shorts,  oat  hulls,  molasses 

Edw.  J.  Butler  & Co’s  Special  Horse  Feed 

7261 

2.0 

10.0 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

Butler’s  Golden  Leaf  __  _ 

7262 

0.5 

12.0 

20.0 

Alfalfa  meal,  1%  salt,  molasses 

Butler’s  Premium  Hog  Feed  

7774 

4.0 

23.0 

12.0 

Wheat  middlings,  barley  flour,  flour 
middlings,  red  dog  flour,  linseed  oil 
meal,  alfalfa  meal,  tankage 

Butlers  Premium  Pig  Meal 

7991 

4.0 

20.0 

12.0 

Alfalfa  meal,  linseed  oil  meal,  diges- 
ter tankage,  blood  flour,  barley 
flour,  red  dog  flour 

Butler’s  Balanced  Ready  Ration  Hog  Feed 

8337 

6.0 

16.5 

22.0 

Wheat  middlings,  flour  middlings, 
corn  oil  cake  meal,  digester  tank- 
age, peanut  meats,  peanut  shells, 
palm  oil  from  manufacture  tin 
plate 

io5 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Butler  & Company,  Edw.  J.,  Chicago,  111. 

Digester  tankage,  ground  peanut 
meats,  ground  peanut  shells,  palm 
oil 

Butler  Special  Hog  Tankage  Eeed 

8617 

6.0 

40.0 

10.0 

Butler’s  Premium  Dairy  Feed 

8934 

6.0 

21.0 

10.5 

Cottonseed  meal,  corn  distillers 
grains  and  solubles,  corn  gluten 
feed,  linseed  oil  meal,  corn  feed 
meal,  white  wheat  middlings,  wheat 
bran  (with  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run),  oat  mid- 
dlings, oat  shorts,  oat  hulls,  1%  salt 

Butler’s  Balanced  Hog  Ration 

Byrnes  & Company,  W.  J.,  Chicago,  111. 

9331 

6.0 

16.5 

10.0 

Com,  wheat  middlings,  rye  mid- 
dlings, com  oil  cake  meal,  alfalfa 
meal,  linseed  oil  meal,  digester  tank- 
age 

Banner  Horse  Feed 

3115 

3.0 

10.0 

6.0 

Corn,  rolled  oats,  rolled  barley 

Cairo  Milling  Company,  Cairo,  111. 

Velvet  Molasses  Feed 

8516 

2.0 

9.0 

12.0 

Corn,  alfalfa  meal,  ground  wheat 
screenings,  molasses 

Chambers,  Ola,  Jasonville,  Ind. 

Chambers  Mixed  Feed 

5103 

3.5 

8.5 

10.0 

Corn,  oats,  wheat  bran,  alfalfa,  mo- 
lasses 

Champion  Feed  Milling  Company,  Lyons,  Iowa 

Champion  Digester  Hog  Feed 

4278 

2.9 

22.0 

9.0 

Wheat  germs,  tankage,  charred  peat, 
flax  plant  by-products  (shives, 
pods,  seeds),  molasses 

Champion  Molasses  Feed  Compound 

Champion  Special  Molasses  Feed  Compound 

6774 

1.5 

10.0 

8.2 

Corn,  wheat  bran,  cottonseed  meal, 
ground  screenings  from  wheat,  bar- 
ley and  flax,  flax  plant  by-product, 
charred  peat,  cane  molasses 

(Heavy  Cottonseed  Mixture)  

Chapin  & Company,  Chicago,  111. 

7470 

3.5 

16.5 

9.0 

Corn,  wheat  bran,  cottonseed  meal, 
flax  plant  by-product,  ground 
screenings  from  wheat, . barley  and 
flax,  charred  peat,  cane  molasses 

Lactola  Dairy  Feed  _ 

9201 

3.0 

16.5 

12.0 

Choice  cottonseed  meal,  corn  dis- 
tillers grains,  clipped  oat  by-prod- 
ucts, corn  gluten  feed,  corn  germ 
meal,  linseed  meal,  brewers  grains, 
Ivory  nut  meal,  salt,  cane  molasses 

Unicorn  Dairy  Ration  

Chapin  & Company,  Hammond,  Ind. 

9388 

5.5 

26.0 

11.0 

Corn  distillers  grains,  cottonseed 
meal,  linseed  meal,  hominy  meal, 
com  gluten  feed,  barley  feed,  copra 
meal,  brewers  dried  grains,  wheat 
bran,  salt 

Centaur  Stock  Feed  

Chapman-Doake  Company,  The,  Decatur,  111. 

6414 

6.0 

16.0 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  hominy  meal,  corn 
gluten  feed,  brewers  dried  grains, 
linseed  meal 

Vigor  Horse  and  Mule  Feed 

5828 

2.0 

8.0 

17.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa,  molasses 

Diamond  “F”  Cow  Feed  __  

8432 

3.0 

12.0 

15.0 

Corn,  wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings, 
hominy  feed,  cottonseed  feed,  (cot- 
tonseed meal  and  hulls)  alfalfa 
meal,  %%  salt,  molasses 

Diamond  “F”  Horse  Feed 

8433 

3.0 

10.0 

17.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  salt, 

molasses 

Yankee  Stock  Feed 

8434 

3.0 

12.0 

17.0 

Corn,  wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings, 
hominy  feed,  alfalfa  meal,  cotton- 
seed feed  (cottonseed  meal  and 
hulls),  ground  wheat  screenings, 
%%  salt,  molasses 

Yankee  Horse  and  Mule  Feed 

8642 

3.0 

11.5 

20.0 

Corn,  oats,  wheat  bran,  corn  feed 
meal,  alfalfa  meal,  corn  gluten 
feed,  %%  salt,  molasses 

Diamond  “F”  Hog  Feed  

8643 

4.0 

22.0 

15.0 

Corn,  wheat  shorts,  corn  feed  meal, 
corn  gluten  feed,  linseed  oil  meal, 
digester  tankage,  cottonseed  feed 
meal  (cottonseed  meal  and  hulls), 
%%  salt 

io6 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

Chapman-Doake  Company,  The,  Decatur,  111. 

Deeding  Meal  __  

8948 

4.0 

9.0 

5.0 

Chicago  Heights  Oil  Mfg.  Company, 

Chicago,  111. 

“Prize”  Brand  Malt  Grains  __  _ 

0549 

6.5 

19.0 

19.0 

“Prize”  Alfalfa  Molasses  Peed ______ 

6733 

0.5 

12.0 

20.0 

“Prize”  Cooked  Hog  Peed  — 

6917 

7.0 

18.0 

12.0 

“Our  Prize  Meal” 

6967 

6.0 

16.0 

12.0 

“Cornflax”  Sweetened  Hogfeed 

.6087 

6.0 

16.0 

12.0 

“Prize”  Horse  Feed  

7003 

2.0 

9.0 

25.0 

Cincinnati  Grain  & Hay  Company,  The, 
Cincinnati,  Ohio 

No  Better  Sweet  Dairy  Feed 

7309 

4.0 

19.0 

9.5 

No  Better  Horse  & Mule  Peed 

7310 

4.0 

12.0 

10.0 

Dry  Dairy  Ration  __  

8072 

5.6 

20*.  2 

12.3 

Citizens  Hay  & Grain  Company, 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Citizens  Special  Horse  Peed 

8866 

3.5 

8.0 

9.0 

Clark  & Sons,  C.  G.,  Rushville,  Ind. 

Clark’s  Stock  Peed  _ 

6344 

2.7 

7.8 

12.0 

Coal  City  Milling  Company,  Coal  City,  Ind. 

Top  Round  Horse  & Cow  Peed  

3760 

3.0 

9.0 

10.0 

Combs  & Son,  L.,  Vincennes,  Ind. 

Comb’s  Ideal  Horse  Peed 

6651 

2.0 

10.0 

10.0 

Combs  Oats,  Corn  Meal,  Alfalfa  Meal  and 

Molasses  — 

7316 

2.0 

8.0 

14.0 

Combs  Dairy  Feed  __  

8524 

3.0 

16.0 

12.0 

Corno  Mills  Company,  The,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Corno  Dairy  Peed  _ 

9021 

3.5 

15.0 

15.0 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Company, 

Lafayette,  Ind. 

Alfalfa  Molasses  Feed 

4953 

1.0 

10.0 

25.0 

Alfalfa  Pat — 

5290 

0.5 

9.0 

25.0 

Thrift  Horse  Peed  

8813 

2.5 

10.0 

10.0 

Thrift  Dairy  Feed  _ 

8437 

3.0 

14.0 

20.0 

Crum,  John,  Milan,  Ind. 

Horse  and  Mule  Peed  _ 

0652 

3.6 

9.0 

12.0 

Crum’s  Horse  and  Mule  Feed 

7784 

3.0 

8.5 

12.0 

Dickinson  Company,  The  Albert,  Chicago,  111. 

White  Cross  Stock  Peed 

4233 

3.5 

10.0 

10.0 

White  Cross  Horse  Peed 

6245 

2.5 

10.0 

8.0 

Dickinson’s  Hobby  Horse  Feed  ___ 

6763 

1.5 

9.0 

15.0 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Ground  corn,  ground  kafir,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  homcoline  (corn 
germ  meal) 

Corn,  barley  malt,  malt  sprouts 
Alfalfa  meal,  1%  salt,  molasses 
Corn  germ  meal,  ground  linseed  oil 
cake,  ground  flaxseed  screenings 
Cooked  partially  extracted  ground 
flaxseed  screenings 

Corn  germ  meal,  linseed  meal, 
ground  cooked  and  partially  ex- 
tracted flaxseed  screenings,  mo- 
lasses 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa,  molasses 


Wheat  bran,  cottonseed  meal,  dis- 
tillers dried  grains,  brewers  dried 
grains,  hominy  meal,  malt  sprouts, 
y2%  salt,  molasses 

Com,  oats,  wheat  bran,  brewers 
dried  grains,  alfalfa  meal,  y2%  salt, 
molasses 

Corn  distillers  dried  grains,  brewers 
dried  grains,  malt  sprouts,  cotton- 
seed meal,  hominy  feed,  wheat 
bran,  wheat  middlings,  y2%  salt 

Corn  and  cob  meal  (crushed  ear 
com)  oats 

Corn,  corn  feed  meal,  oat  middlings, 
oat  shorts,  oat  hulls,  1%  salt 

Corn,  oats,  wheat  bran 


Wheat  bran,  corn  meal,  alfalfa  meal, 
molasses 

Oats,  corn  meal,  alfalfa  meal,  mo- 
lasses 

Wheat  bran,  corn  meal,  alfalfa  meal, 
cottonseed  meal,  cottonseed  hulls, 
salt,  molasses 

Alfalfa  meal,  cottonseed  meal, 
ground  cottonseed  hulls,  oat  mid- 
dlings, oat  shorts,  oat  hulls,  mo- 
lasses 

Alfalfa,  molasses 
Alfalfa  meal,  molasses 
Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal,  wheat 
bran  with  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run,  alfalfa  meal, 
salt,  molasses 

Wheat  bran,  cottonseed  meal,  linseed 
oil  meal,  brewers  dried  grains,  al- 
falfa meal,  corn  feed  meal,  ground 
corn  screenings,  salt,  molasses 
Com,  oats,  rye,  wheat  bran 
Corn,  oats,  rye,  corn  feed  meal, 
wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings, 

ground  wheat  screenings 
Oats,  barley,  cottonseed  meal, 

wheat  feed  meal,  corn  bran,  corn 
feed  meal,  salt 
Corn,  oats,  barley 
Corn,  oats,  barley,  alfalfa  meal,  mo- 
lasses 


107 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


LABEL 


Dickinson  Company,  The  Albert,  Chicago,  111. 

Dickinson’s  Honeysuckle  Feed 

Dickinson’s  Oasis  Horse  Feed 

Rival  Horse  Feed 

Stag  Stock  Feed  


Dickinson  Dairy  Feed 


Rival  Hog  Feed 


Dixie  Mills  Company,  East  St.  Louis,  111. 
Anchor  Horse  and  Mule  Feed 

Dixie  Alfalfa  Molasses  Feed 

Anchor  Molasses  Horse  and  Mule  Feed 
Diamond  Horse  & Mule  Feed 

Clipco  Molasses  Feed 

Dixie  Horse  & Mule  Feed 

Polo  Horse  Feed  

Anchor  Dairy  Feed  


Dixie  Dairy  Feed 


Polo  Dairy  Feed 


Diamond  Dairy  Feed 


Holsum  Dairy  Feed 


Holsum  Horse  Feed 

Early  & Daniel  Company,  The,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 
Tuxedo  Chop  

Ce-re-a-lia  Sweets  for  Dairy 


Eberts  & Pro.,  North  Vernon,  Ind. 
Quality  Feed  


Molasses  Horse  Feed 
Quality  Horse  Feed  . 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

c 

ciS 

c c 

5$  ’53 

S3 

s 

Official  No 

Not  less  th 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  th 

per  cent. 

crude  prof 

Not  more  t 

per  cent. 

crude  f ibei 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

6785 

0.5 

10.0 

25.0 

Alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

7008 

1.5 

9.0 

16.0 

Corn,  oats,  barley,  alfalfa  meal,  mo- 
lasses 

7240 

1.5 

9.0 

15.0 

Corn,  oats,  barley,  alfalfa  meal,  mo- 
lasses 

8300 

3.0 

9.0 

12.0 

Barley,  corn  feed  meal,  corn  bran, 
wheat  middlings,  cottonseed  meal, 
ground  corn  screenings,  oat  mid- 
dlings, oat  shorts,  oat  hulls,  %% 
salt 

9119 

5.5 

24.0 

11.0 

Corn  gluten  feed,  brewers  dried 
grains,  wheat  bran,  wheat  mid- 
dlings, cottonseed  meal,  linseed 
meal,  hominy  feed,  yz%  salt 

9280 

3.0 

12.5 

12.5 

Linseed  oil  meal,  corn  bran,  corn 
feed  meal,  alfalfa  meal,  ground 
screenings  from  wheat,  oats,  barley 
and  kafir,  salt 

4550 

3.5 

10.0 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  cottonseed 
meal 

5420 

0.5 

8.0 

25.0 

Alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

5039 

2.5 

10.0 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

6935 

1.5 

9.0 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  cane  mo- 
lasses 

7977 

1.0 

7.0 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  clipped  oat  by-product, 
molasses 

8314 

2.5 

10.0 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  sugar  cane 
molasses 

8546 

1.5 

9.0 

12.0 

Com,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  cane  mo- 
lasses 

8634 

4.0 

24.0 

12.0 

Corn  feed  meal,  cottonseed  meal, 
com  gluten  feed,  old  process  linseed 
meal,  wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings, 
alfalfa  meal,  dried  brewers  grains, 
1%  salt 

8635 

3.5 

16.5 

12.0 

Alfalfa  meal,  cottonseed  meal,  corn 
feed  meal,  ground  flaxseed  screen- 
ings, clipped  oat  by-product,  mo- 
lasses 

8636 

3.5 

17.5 

16.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  brewers  dried 
grains,  alfalfa  meal,  clipped  oat  by- 
product, wheat  bran,  corn  feed 
meal,  ground  flaxseed  screenings 

8935 

3.5 

16.5 

12.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  clipped  oat  by- 
product, ground  flaxseed  screenings, 
molasses 

9228 

2.0 

12.0 

17.0 

Cottonseed  feed,  (cottonseed  meal, 
cottonseed  hulls)  clipped  oat  by- 
product, ground  flaxseed  screenings, 
molasses 

9278 

1.0 

9.0 

16.0 

Com,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  ground 
screenings  from  corn,  oats,  barley 
and  kafir,  molasses 

5297 

3.0 

10.5 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  brewers 
dried  grains,  molasses 

8781 

4.0 

18.0 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  com 
gluten  feed,  cottonseed  meal,  com 
meal,  corn  distillers  dried  grains, 
brewers  dried  grains,  malt  sprouts, 
molasses 

2919 

5.0 

16.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  hom- 
iny meal,  alfalfa  meal,  linseed  meal, 
cottonseed  meal,  salt 

5169 

2.0 

8.0 

17.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa,  molasses 

8670 

1 2.0 

1 10.0 

1 12.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa,  molasses 

io8 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


LABEL 


Official  No. 

' 

Guaranteed  1 

Not  less  than 

percent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

6877 

2.0 

10.0 

13.0 

7358 

4.5 

10.6 

7.0 

7562 

1.0 

0.0 

25.0 

8054 

4.5 

10.0 

11.0 

8417 

3.5 

11.0 

16.0 

8522 

3.0 

10.0 

12.0 

7558 

3.5 

0.0 

6.5 

4635 

3.0 

11.0 

7.0 

5108 

2.0 

7.0 

12.0 

6820 

2.0 

7.0 

12.0 

8258 

3.7 

12.7 

14.0 

2408 

3.6 

0.2 

13.0 

5703 

3.0 

0.5 

10.4 

6451 

3.0 

12.0 

12.0 

6463 

2.0 

0.0 

15.0 

6601 

1.0 

8.0 

20.0 

7160 

2.0 

5.0 

13.0 

8353 

3.0 

10.0 

8.0 

8854 

0.5 

10.0 

26.0 

8356 

2.5 

10.0 

0.0 

8330 

4.5 

17.0 

13.0 

8831 

5.5 

17.0 

13.0 

8332 

4.0 

18.0 

12.0 

8333 

4.0 

12.0 

10.0 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Edinger  & Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Arrow  Horse  & Mule  Eeed 

Eureka  Ground  Eeed ; 

Arrow  Alfalfa  and  Molasses 

Arrow  Dairy  Eeed 

E-Co  Falfa  Feed  

Arrow  Hog  Meal 

Egloff  Milling  Company,  Vincennes,  Ind. 
Horse  and  Mule  Chops 

Emison  & Company,  J.  & S.,  (Baltic  Mills) 
Vincennes,  Ind. 

Arrow  Stock  Eeed  

Amo  Syrup  Feed  

Sentinel  Horse  & Cattle  Feed 

Emison’s  Dairy  Feed 

Enos,  M.  T.,  New  Albany,  Ind. 

Enos’  Dairy  Feed 

Eureka  Mills  Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Eureka  Cattle  Feed 

Fairplay  Feed  Mills,  Linton,  Ind. 

Fairplay  Dairy  Feed  

Fairplay  Horse  Feed  

Heavy  Molasses  Feed  

Fairplay  Fattener  

Feed  Products  Milling  Company,  Chicago,  111. 
Eatall  Horse  Feed 

Kingfalfa  Meadow  Feed 

Polo  Stock  Feed 

Ferger  Grain  Company,  Cincinnati,  Ohio. 
York  Dairy  Feed  

Blue  Boar  Hog  Feed  

Sunshine  Dairy  Feed  

Nutritia  Horse  Feed 


Corn,  oats,  alfalfa,  salt,  molasses 
Corn,  oats,  barley,  wheat  bran 
Alfalfa,  molasses 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  corn 
meal,  cottonseed  meal,  alfalfa,  dis- 
tillers dried  grains,  (corn,  barley, 
malt,  rye)  brewers  dried  grains, 
(corn  grits,  barley,  malt,  rice)  mo- 
lasses 

Corn,  oats,  wheat  bran,  alfalfa,  yz% 
salt 

Wheat  middlings,  digester  tankage, 
com  meal,  corn  germ  meal,  alfalfa 
meal,  cottonseed  meal,  1%  salt 
Corn,  oats 


Cracked  corn,  ground  oats,  alfalfa 
meal 

Corn,  alfalfa  meal,  ground  screen- 
ings from  wheat,  oats  and  barley, 
1%  salt,  molasses 

Cottonseed  meal,  com  feed  meal,  al- 
falfa meal,  ground  screenings  from 
wheat,  oats,  barley  and  corn, 
clipped  oat  by-product,  1%  salt,  mo- 
lasses 

Hominy  feed,  corn  feed  meal,  cotton- 
seed meal,  alfalfa  meal,  ground 
corn  silks,  husks  and  screenings,  1% 
salt 

Wheat  bran,  alfalfa  meal,  oats,  corn 
and  cob  meal 

Oats,  alfalfa  meal,  corn  meal,  hom- 
iny feed,  ground  oat  hulls 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  cottonseed 
meal,  alfalfa,  clipped  oat  by-prod- 
uct, salt,  molasses 

Corn,  oats,  barley,  alfalfa,  salt,  mo- 
lasses 

Alfalfa  meal,  clipped  oat  by-product, 
salt,  molasses 

Com,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  clipped  oat 
by-product,  salt,  molasses 

Sifted  cracked  corn,  rolled  oats, 
rolled  barley 

Alfalfa,  molasses 

Oats,  wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings, 
corn  gluten  feed,  corn  feed  meal, 
oat  middlings,  oat  shorts,  oat  hulls 

Oats,  wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings, 
malt  sprouts,  corn  meal,  corn  dis- 
tillers grains,  cottonseed  meal,  salt 

Wheat  middlings,  corn  meal,  corn 
gluten  meal,  hominy  meal,  digester 
tankage,  salt 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  hom- 
iny meal,  corn  meal,  corn  distillers 
grains,  cottonseed  meal,  alfalfa 
meal,  salt,  molasses 

Corn,  oats,  wheat  bran,  alfalfa 
meal,  cottonseed  meal,  brewers 
grains,  salt,  molasses 


109 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Ferger  Grain  Company,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 

Nutritia  Dairy  Feed  __  

8334 

7.0 

24.0 

13.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  hom- 
iny meal,  cottonseed  meal,  corn  dis- 
tillers grains,  malt  sprouts,  linseed 
meal,  salt 

Queen  City  Horse  Feed  . 

Fisher  Bros.,  Evansville,  Ind. 

8391 

3.0 

10.0 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  wheat  bran,  cottonseed 
meal,  alfalfa  meal,  brewers  dried 
grains,  salt,  molasses 

Red  Crown  Horse  & Mule  Feed — 

8717 

1.5 

9.0 

15.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  1%  salt, 
molasses 

Diamond  Horse  and  Mule  Feed 

8719 

2.0 

9.0 

17.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  1%  salt, 
molasses 

Diamond  Hog  Feed  _ 

8720 

4.0 

20.0 

15.0 

Wheat  middlings,  linseed  oil  meal, 
cottonseed  meal,  hominy  feed,  corn 
feed  meal,  digester  tankage,  y2% 
salt 

Diamond  Cow  Feed 

9060 

3.0 

15.0 

15.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  corn 
feed  meal,  cottonseed  meal  and 
hulls,  linseed  oil  meal,  y2%  salt,  al- 
falfa meal,  molasses 

Yankee  Horse  & Mule  Feed 

Fruechtenicht,  Henry,  Louisville,  Ky. 

9405 

2.0 

8.0 

17.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  alfalfa  meal, 
1%  salt,  molasses 

Blue  Grass  Horse  & Mule  Feed  __  

8576 

2.5 

9.0 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  y2%  salt, 
molasses 

Blue  Grass  Dairy  Feed  

Gandy  & Company,  0.,  South  Whitley,  Ind. 

8678 

3.5 

17.0 

16.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  corn  meal,  alfalfa 
meal,  corn  distillers  dried  grains, 
brewers  dried  grains,  y2%  salt,  mo- 
lasses 

Standard  Hog  Feed  

Gibson  Live  Stock  & Feed  Company, 

Princeton,  Ind. 

9074 

5.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal,  corn 
bran,  corn  germ  meal,  corn  gluten 
feed,  wheat  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings 

Pilgrim  Horse  Feed  

9121 

2.5 

7.5 

9.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa,  salt,  molasses 

Pilgrim  Dairy  Feed  _ _ 

9403 

4.0 

17.0 

15.0 

Wheat  bran,  cottonseed  meal,  corn 
feed  meal,  velvet  bean  feed,  salt 

Golden  Grain  Milling  Company, 

East  St.  Louis,  111. 

Golden  Grain  Comette  Brand 

5632 

1.5 

9.0 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  y2  to  1% 
salt,  molasses 

“Ben  Hur  Horse  & Mule  Feed” 

8203 

2.0 

9.0 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  y2  to  1% 
salt,  molasses 

“Golden  Grain  Horse  & Mule  Feed” 

8204 

2.0 

9.0 

14.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  y2  to  1% 
salt,  molasses 

“Puritan  Horse  & Mule  Feed” 

8205 

1.5 

9.0 

16.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  y2  to  1% 
salt,  molasses 

“Golden  Grain  Alfalfa  Molasses  Feed” 

8206 

1.0 

10.0 

25.0 

Alfalfa  meal,  y2  to  1%  salt,  molasses 

“Golden  Grain  Dairy  Feed” 

8207 

3.0 

12.0 

18.0 

Alfalfa  meal,  brewers  dried  grains, 
cottonseed  meal,  clipped  oat  by- 
product, y2  to  1%  salt,  molasses 

“Mascot  Horse  & Mule  Feed” 

8324 

1.5 

9.0 

18.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  y2  to  1% 
salt,  molasses 

“Val-U  Horse  & Mule  Feed” 

8371 

1.5 

9.0 

18.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  peanut 
meats,  peanut  hulls,  palm  oil, 
(palmo  meal)  y2  to  1%  salt,  mo- 
lasses 

“Liberty  Bond  Horse  & Mule  Feed” 

8840 

1.5 

9.0 

18.0 

Oats,  alfalfa  meal,  y2  to  1%  salt, 
molasses 

Butter  Fat  Dairy  Feed 

Grain  Belt  Mills  Company, 

South  St.  Joseph,  Mo. 

9161 

4.0 

18.0 

16.5 

Cottonseed  meal,  corn  gluten  feed, 
wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  copra 
meal,  (dried  cocoanut  meats)  al- 
falfa meal,  y2  to  1%  salt,  molasses 

“Hunter”  Horse  and  Mule  Feed 

8147 

2.0 

9.0 

14.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  y2  to  1% 
salt,  molasses 

“Bronco”  Horse  and  Mule  Feed  _ 

8148 

1.5 

10.0 

15.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  y2  to  1% 
salt,  molasses 

“Pennant”  Horse  and  Mule  Feed 

8149 

1.0 

10.0 

18.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  y2  to  1% 
salt,  molasses 

“Stag”  Alfalfa  and  Molasses  Feed  

8150 

0.5 

10.0 

24.0 

Alfalfa  meal,  y2  to  1%  salt,  molasses 

“Greenleaf”  Alfalfa  and  Molasses  Feed  _ 

8151 

0.7 

10.0 

26.0 

Alfalfa  meal,  y2  to  1%  salt,  molasses 

no 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Grain  Belt  Mills  Company, 

South  St.  Joseph,  Mo. 

Oatfalfa  (Brand)  Horse  & Mule  Feed 

8750 

2.0 

12.0 

17.0 

Oats,  alfalfa  meal,  y2%  salt,  mo- 
lasses 

Ex  X tre  Brand  Horse  & Mule  Feed . 

8776 

2.0 

9.0 

14.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  y2  to  1% 
salt,  molasses 

“Bonanza”  Horse  and  Mule  Feed 

9185 

1.5 

10.0 

15.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  y2%  salt, 
molasses 

“Red  D”  Dairy  Feed 

9186 

4.0 

16.0 

15.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  alfalfa  meal, 
ground  wheat  screenings,  corn  feed 
meal,  y2%  salt,  molasses 

Topper  Hog-  Feed  . 

Habig  Bros.,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

9349 

3.5 

20.0 

12.0 

Alfalfa  meal,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings, linseed  meal,  tankage,  dried 
peat,  y2  to  1%  salt,  molasses 

Habig’s  Horse  Feed 

3271 

4.0 

10.0 

8.0 

Oats,  wheat  bran,  linseed  meal,  hom- 
iny feed,  corn  feed  meal,  corn  bran 

Hales  & Edwards  Company,  Chicago,  111. 

Greeno  Feed  _ ___  _ 

7578 

0.5 

10.0 

26.0 

Alfalfa,  molasses 

Harvest  Horse  Feed  _ ___  __ 

7615 

2.0 

10.0 

15.0 

Corn,  oats,  barley,  alfalfa,  molasses 

Excelsior  Horse  Feed 

7817 

3.0 

10.0 

8.0 

Corn,  rolled  oats,  r'olled  barley 

Red  Horn  Dairy  Feed 

8273 

4.0 

25.0 

15.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  com  gluten  feed, 
wheat  bran,  linseed  oil  meal,  malt 
sprouts,  corn  feed  meal,  brewers 
dried  grains 

Gold  Flake  Dairy  Feed 

8274 

3.5 

16.0 

15.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  corn  gluten  feed, 
linseed  oil  meal,  clipped  oat  by- 
product, ground  and  bolted  screen- 
ings from  wheat,  barley  and  kafir, 
salt,  molasses 

Pioneer  Hog  Feed  (With  Dried  Buttermilk)... 

8275 

3.0 

12.0 

12.0 

Wheat  middlings,  corn  feed  meal, 
linseed  oil  meal,  ground  and  bolted 
screenings  from  wheat?  barley  and 
kafir,  dried  buttermilk 

Pioneer  Stock  Feed  

9043 

2.5 

10.0 

9.0 

Corn  feed  meal,  wheat  middlings, 
wheat  bran,  corn  gluten  feed,  oat 
middlings,  oat  shorts,  oat  hulls, 
barley  feed 

Kingfalfa  Horse  Feed  _ 

9116 

2.0 

10.0 

15.0 

Corn,  oats,  barley,  alfalfa,  molasses 

Eat  all  Dairy  Feed 

Hamlin  & Company,  Dwight  E., 

Pittsburgh,  Pa. 

9117 

4.0 

20.0 

10.0 

Barley,  oats,  old  process  linseed  oil 
meal,  corn  gluten  feed,  wheat  bran, 
brewers  dried  grains,  malt  sprouts, 
cottonseed  meal,  corn  feed  meal, 
hominy  feed 

H.  & S.  Alfalfa  Feed  

5144 

3.5 

14.0 

16.0 

Alfalfa,  brewers  and  distillers  dried 
grains,  molasses 

Hamlins  Purekane  Molasses  Feed  . 

6543 

1.5 

5.0 

8.0 

Brewers  dried  grains,  distillers  dried 
grains,  cane  molasses 

Hanks  Company,  The  Howard  H.,  Chicago,  111. 

Kingfalfa  Meadow  Feed  

5267 

0.5 

10.0 

26.0 

Alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

Kingfalfa  Horse  Feed 

6276 

2.0 

9.0 

15.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  molasses 
Corn,  com  feed  meal,  oat  middlings, 
oat  shorts,  oat  hulls 

Polo  Feed  

6420 

3.0 

9.0 

12.0 

Haynes  Milling  Company,  The,  Portland,  Ind. 

Paymaster  Pig  Feed  

9245 

4.0 

12.0 

9.0 

Barley,  corn  feed  meal,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  linseed  oil  meal 

Hazleton  Flour  Mills,  Hazleton,  Ind. 

Horse  Feed  . 

8506 

2.0 

8.0 

20.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  molasses, 
salt 

Henderson  Grain  Company,  Henderson,  Ky. 

Kentucky  Star  Horse  & Mule  Feed 

6239 

2.0 

9.0 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  clipped  oat 
by-product,  salt,  molasses 

O.  K.  Uncle  Sam  Horse  and  Mule  Feed 

H.  O.  Company,  The,  Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

6240 

2.5 

10.0 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  clipped  oat 
by-product,  1%  salt,  molasses 

The  H-0  Co’s  Algrane  Horse  Feed 

7090 

4.0 

11.0 

10.0 

Corn,  oats,  wheat  middlings,  hominy 
feed,  corn  gluten  feed,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  oat  shorts,  oat 
hulls,  y2%  salt,  molasses 

Ill 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

9 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Hord  Alfalfa  Meal  Company,  T.  B., 

Central  City,  Neb. 

“A.  M”  

2956 

0.8 

10.0 

20.0 

Alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

Illinois  Feed  Mills,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

0.  K.  Feed  with  Molasses  

71881 

1.5 

9.0 

15.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  1%  salt, 
molasses 

Star  Feed  with  Molasses 

7883 

1.7 

9.3 

13.0 

Com,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  salt,  mo- 
lasses 

Indiana  Elevator  Company,  Indianapolis,  Ind.49 

King  Horse  & Mule  Feed 

6896 

1.5 

8.0 

18.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

Indiana  Milling  Company,  Terre  Haute,  Ind. 

Whiskerene  

2127 

2.0 

11.4 

14.0 

Corn  silks,  husks,  whole  and  ground 
corn  screenings 

Blue  Ribbon  Feed  

3330 

3.5 

8.0 

8.5 

Ground  shelled  corn,  cob  meal 

Universal  Feed 

5212 

3.2 

10.2 

7.2 

Corn,  oats,  wheat  bran,  molasses 

Cracker- Jack  

5366 

1.5 

8.0 

14.0 

Wheat  bran,  cob  meal,  molasses 

Imco  Combination  Feed 

5686 

2.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Ground  corn  screenings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  ground  clipped 
oat  by-product,  molasses 

“Holstein  Feed”  

International  Sugar  Feed  Company, 

6825 

3.0 

11.0 

16.0 

Wheat  bran  with  ground  wheat 
screenings  not  to  exceed  mill  run, 
cob  meal 

Minneapolis,  Minn. 

International  Hog  Feed  and  Charcoal 

6097 

4.5 

22.5 

12.0 

Old  process  linseed  oil  meal,  tankage, 
ground  and  bolted  screenings  from 
wheat,  oats,  barley  and  flax,  char- 
coal, salt,  molasses 

International  Ready  Ration  Dairy  Feed 

8896 

5.0 

20.0 

15.0 

Wheat  bran,  cottonseed  meal,  old 
process  linseed  oil  meal,  ground 
screenings  from  wheat,  oats,  barley 
and  flax,  clipped  oat  by-product, 
salt,  molasses 

International  Dan  Patch  Special  Horse  Feed- 

9073 

3.0 

9.0 

15.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa,  salt,  molasses 

International  Planters  Dairy  Feed  . . 

9083 

3.5 

22.0 

18.5 

Cottonseed  feed,  (cottonseed  meal, 
cottonseed  hulls)  linseed  oil  meal, 
salt,  molasses 

International  Planters  Cattle  Feed 

9084 

3.5 

22.0 

18.5 

Cottonseed  feed,  (cottonseed  meal, 
cottonseed  hulls)  linseed  oil  meal, 
salt,  molasses 

International  Special  Dairy  Feed 

9085 

4.5 

15.0 

16.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  ground  clipped  oat 
by-product,  ground  screenings  from 
wheat,  oats,  barley  and  flax,  salt, 
molasses 

International  Climax  Dairy  Feed 

9086 

4.0 

12.5 

15.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  ground  clipped  oat 
by-product,  ground  screenings  from 
wheat,  oats,  barley  and  flax,  salt, 
molasses 

International  Cattle  Feed  

9087 

5.0 

25.0 

10.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  old  process  linseed 
oil  meal,  ground  and  bolted  screen- 
ings from  wheat,  oats,  barley  and 
flax,  salt,  molasses 

International  Jewel  Dairy  Feed 

9088 

4.5 

16.0 

20.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  ground  oat  straw, 
salt,  molasses 

International  Hog  Feed 

9089 

5.0 

22.5 

12.0 

Old  process  linseed  oil  meal,  tank- 
age, ground  and  bolted  screenings 
from  wheat,  oats,  barley  and  flax, 
charcoal,  salt,  molasses 

International  Dairy  Feed 

9092 

4.5 

17.5 

14.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  ground  clipped  oat 
by-product,  ground  screenings  from 
wheat,  oats,  barley  and  flax,  salt, 
molasses 

Corn,  old  process  linseed  oil  meal, 
tankage,  ground  and  bolted  screen- 
ings from  wheat,  oats,  barley  and 
flax,  ground  delinted  cottonseed 
hulls,  5%  charcoal,  molasses 

International  Climax  Hog  Feed  

9184 

3.5 

15.0 

18.5 

40  Succeeded  by  Indiana  Elevator 


1 12 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

International  Feed  Company, 

Minneapolis,  Minn. 

I.  S.  F.  Hog  Feed  and  Charcoal  __  

Interstate  Feed  Association,  Detroit,  Mich. 

9429 

5.0 

20.0 

13.5 

Old  process  linseed  oil  meal,  tankage, 
ground  and  bolted  screenings  from 
wheat,  oats,  barley  and  flax,  char- 
coal, salt,  molasses 

Mormilk  Ready  Ration  Dairy  Feed  ___ 

8945 

4.5 

20.0 

15.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  ground  screenings 
from  wheat,  oats,  barley  and  flax, 
ground  clipped  oat  by-product,  salt, 
molasses 

Superior  Hog  Feed 

Jordan,  Geo.  M.,  Vincennes,  Ind. 

9815 

3.5 

15.0 

18.5 

Corn,  old  process  linseed  oil  meal, 
tankage,  ground  and  bolted  screen- 
ings from  wheat,  oats,  barley  and 
flax,  ground  delinted  cottonseed 
hulls,  charcoal,  molasses 

G.  M.  J.  Horse  & Mule  Chop 

7619 

3.5 

9.0 

6.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal 

G.  M.  J.  Producer  Molasses  Feed 

8992 

2.5 

9.5 

10.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa,  salt,  molasses 

G.  M.  J. — “Dairy  Feed” 

Judson  Creamery  & Produce  Company, 

8994 

5.5 

18.0 

13.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  shorts,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  corn  feed  meal, 
cottonseed  meal,  salt 

North  Judson,  Ind. 

Palmo  Hog  Feed 

8407 

6.0 

16.0 

8.0 

Cleaning  wheat  middlings,  palm  oil 
from  manufacture  tin  plate 

King  Manufacturing  Company, 

North  Vernon,  Ind. 

King’s  High  Protein  Seed  Meal 

8185 

6.0 

23.0 

18.0 

Ground  and  bolted  screenings  from 
clover  seed  and  alfalfa  seed,  linseed 
oil  meal 

Kings  High  Protein  Hog  Feed  Meal 

8489 

6.5 

17.0 

12.0 

Hominy  meal,  ground  and  bolted 
screenings  from  clover  and  alfalfa 
seed,  linseed  oil  meal,  tankage,  *4% 
salt 

King  High  Protein  Dairy  Feed 

8967 

5.0 

20.0 

16.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  wheat  bran,  alfalfa 
meal,  ground  screenings  from  clover, 
alfalfa  and  timothy  seed,  1%  salt 

King’s  High  Protein  Horse  Feed  

Kingman  Grain  & Milling  Company, 

Kingman,  Ind. 

9402 

4.0 

14.0 

18.5 

Hominy  meal,  corn  feed  meal,  corn 
bran,  alfalfa  meal,  wheat  bran, 
ground  screenings  from  clover,  al- 
falfa and  timothy  seed,  yz%  salt 

Victor  Ground  Feed 

Kornfalfa  Feed  Milling  Company, 

5385 

3.0 

8.7 

8.0 

Wheat,  corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  com 
feed  meal,  whole  wheat  screenings 

Kansas  City,  Mo. 

Straight  Alfalfa  Molasses  Feed  

4679 

1.0 

9.0 

25.0 

Alfalfa,  molasses 

Kornfalfa  Kandy  Feed  

5094 

2.5 

9.0 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa,  meal,  molasses 

Klimax  Horse  & Mule  Feed 

5244 

1.5 

8.0 

17.0 

Com,  oats,  alfalfa,  molasses 

Keno  Horse  & Mule  Feed 

52145 

2.5 

9.0 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa,  molasses 

Kay  Horse  & Mule  Feed 

5004 

2.0 

10.0 

17.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa,  molasses 

Krause  Milling  Company,  Chas.  A., 

Milwaukee,  Wis. 

Cream  City  Horse  Feed 

6679 

1.5 

10.0 

14.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  salt,  mo- 
lasses 

Badger  Evergreen  Feed 

Blue  Top  Horse  Feed 

6724 

0.5 

11.5 

30.0 

Alfalfa  meal,  salt,  molasses 

7617 

1.0 

10.0 

16.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  salt,  mo- 
lasses 

Krause  Horse  Feed 

7067 

2.5 

10.0 

10.0 

Com,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  salt,  mo- 
lasses 

Badger  Horse  Feed 

8080 

2.0 

10.0 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa,  salt,  molasses 

Crescent  Horse  Feed 

8349 

1.5 

10.0 

16.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa,  clipped  oat  by- 
product, salt,  molasses 

Krause  Stock  Feed 

8006 

4.5 

10.0 

12.0 

Hominy  feed,  com  germ  meal,  maizo 
(corn)  reddog  flour,  oat  middlings, 
oat  shorts,  oat  hulls,  salt 

Sweet  Cud  Dairy  Feed 

8950 

1.2 

14.0 

20.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  alfalfa,  salt,  mo- 
lasses 

Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Krause  Milling  Company,  Chas.  A., 

Milwaukee,  Wis. 

Pulmor  Horse  Feed 

9284 

1.0 

16.0 

9.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  flax  plant 
by-product,  oat  middlings,  oat 
shorts,  oat  hulls,  salt,  molasses 

Krause  Hog  Feed 

9295 

4.0 

15.0 

9.0 

Hominy  feed,  wheat  bran,  alfalfa, 
corn  feed  meal,  tankage,  wheat  mid- 
dlings, rye  middlings,  corn  germ 
meal,  peanut  oil  meal,  velvet  bean 
feed,  salt 

Badger  Stock  Feed  

9296 

4.5 

10.0 

12.0 

Corn,  hominy  feed,  corn  germ  meal, 
maizo  (corn)  red  dog  flour,  wheat 
bran,  wheat  middlings,  rye  mid- 
dlings, ground  screenings  from 
wheat  and  rye  not  exceeding  mill 
run,  oat  middlings,  oat  shorts,  oat 
hulls,  salt 

Krause  Dairy  Feed - 

9297 

5.0 

24.0 

13.0 

Corn  distillers  dried  grains,  brewers 
dried  grains,  cottonseed  meal,  corn 
gluten  feed,  old  process  linseed  oil 
meal,  hominy  feed,  corn  germ  meal, 
malt  sprouts,  wheat  middlings, 
wheat  bran,  rye  middlings,  ground 
screenings  from  wheat  and  rye  not 
exceeding  mill  run,  salt 

Cream  City  Dairy  Feed _ 

Lash  Flour  Mills,  The  Fred  B., 

Farmersburg,  Ind. 

9298 

3.5 

19.0 

15.0 

Corn  gluten  feed,  cottonseed  meal, 
hominy  feed,  brewers  dried  grains, 
old  process  linseed  oil  meal,  wheat 
bran,  wheat  middlings,  rye  mid- 
dlings, ground  screenings  from 
wheat  and  rye  not  exceeding  mill 
run,  velvet  bean  feed,  oat  middlings, 
oat  shorts,  oat  hulls,  salt 

Lashs  Sweet  Feed 

8545 

2.0 

9.0 

20.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

Linkhart  & Son,  J.  W.,  North  Vernon,  Ind. 

Linkhart’s  Hog  Feed  __  __  _ . ___  _ __ 

Linton  Mill  Company,  Linton,  Ind. 

9294 

4.0 

15.0 

7.0 

Hominy  meal,  corn  feed  meal,  wheat 
bran,  wheat  middlings,  digester 
tankage 

B.  Mixed  Feed _ 

Loogootee  Milling  Company,  The, 

Loogootee,  Ind. 

5805 

3.0 

13.0 

12.0 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  corn  bran,  lin- 
seed meal,  corn  gluten  feed,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  clipped  oat  by- 
product, salt,  molasses 

Falfa  Syrup  Feed  __  __  

7283 

2.0 

10.5 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  ydieat  bran,  com  bran, 
alfalfa  meal,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings, salt,  molasses 

L.  M.  C.  Pig  Meal  

8565 

7.0 

28.8 

12.0 

Corn  distillers  dried  grains,  wheat 
middlings,  corn  feed  meal,  tankage 

L.  M.  C.  Horse  Feed  _ ... 

8566 

9.0 

30.0 

13.0 

Corn  distillers  dried  grains,  cotton- 
seed meal 

Loughry  Bros.  Milling  & Grain  Company, 
Monticello,  Ind. 

Loughry’s  Hog  Feed  

9422 

4.5 

12.0 

8.0 

Corn  feed  meal,  digester  tankage 

Louisville  Cereal  Mill  Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Nonesuch  Mixed  Feed ... 

2561 

7.8 

11.6 

6.5 

Wheat  bran,  hominy  meal 

Loy,  W.  J.,  Columbus,  Ind. 

Dairy  Feed 

Maginot  Bros.,  Hammond,  Ind. 

5238 

3.2 

9.0 

10.0 

Corn,  oats,  wheat  bran,  wheat  mid- 
dlings, corn  bran,  corn  feed  meal, 
ground  wheat  screenings 

“Magnet”  Horse  Feed 

3105 

3.0 

10.7 

19.8 

Wheat  bran,  oats,  barley,  corn  meal, 
alfalfa,  linseed  cake,  salt 

Martin,  John  D.,  Lafayette,  Ind. 

Duree  Dairy  Feed 

4650 

3.0 

10.0 

20.0 

Corn  and  cob  meal,  (ground  ear 
corn)  oats,  wheat  bran,  wheat  mid- 
dlings, cottonseed  meal,  alfalfa 
meal,  linseed  meal,  y2%  salt 

LABEL 


|sg 


« e 

-C  +j 


a; 

;+ sa 


" U 

At  P>  v 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

4 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Martin,  John  D.,  Lafayette,  Ind. 

Duree  Hog  Feed  

9414 

4.0 

18.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings,  rye  middlings, 

Mexico  Roller  Mills,  Mexico,  Ind. 

Black’s  Balanced  Hog  Feed  

5053 

3.5 

10.0 

7.0 

com  feed  meal,  wheat  bran,  linseed 
oil  meal,  blood  meal,  tankage,  not 
over  y2%  salt 

Corn,  wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings, 

Milan  Mill  & Elevator,  Milan,  Ind. 

Horse  Feed  & Fattener 

6367 

3.2 

10.5 

10.0 

wheat  shorts 

Corn,  oats,  rye,  wheat  bran,  wheat 

Milan  Milling  Company,  Milan,  Ind. 

Horse  Feed  _ __  _ 

7739 

3.0 

8.5 

11.0 

middlings,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal 

Corn,  oats,  rye,  corn  feed  meal 

Molassine  Company  of  America,  Boston,  Mass. 
Molassine  Meal  __  _ 

5718 

0.5 

7.0 

7.0 

Cooked  spaghmun  moss,  molasses 

Moutoux,  P.  & H.,  Evansville,  Ind. 

“XL”  Pig  Meal  

9427 

3.0 

14.5 

16.5 

Corn,  corn  feed  meal,  cottonseed 

“X  L”  Dairy  Feed 

9428 

2.5 

10.0 

17.0 

meal,  feeding  tankage,  wheat  mid- 
dlings with  mill  run  ground  wheat 
screenings,  linseed  meal,  y2%  salt 
Com,  corn  feed  meal,  cottonseed 

Mueller,  E.  P.,  Chicago,  111. 

M V C 0 Dried  Grains  

8631 

5.0 

21.0 

19.0 

meal,  wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings 
with  mill  run  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings, corn  bran,  y2%  salt 

Barley  malt,  malt  sprouts,  corn  dis- 

Munn Brokerage  Company,  Little  Rock,  Ark. 
Tiger  Brand  Molasses  Fattener 

7399 

0.7 

4.0 

21.0 

tillers  dried  grains 

Cottonseed  hulls,  cane  molasses 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Cracker  Jack  Horse  Feed 

9512 

2.0 

10.0 

12.0 

Com,  cats,  alfalfa  meal,  salt,  mo- 

Green Pasture 

1 9513 

0.5 

12.0 

20.0 

lasses 

Alfalfa  meal,  salt,  molasses 

National  Elevators,  Branch,  American  Hominy 
Company,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

A.  Cow  Feed 

6557 

2.5 

9.0 

16.0 

Ground  screenings  from  corn,  oats, 

National  Feed  Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Alfalfa  Molasses  Feed  

4260 

. 1.0 

10.0 

20.0 

wheat  and  rye 

Alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

“Oat  Hull  Feed” 

5832 

2.7 

6.7 

32.6 

Ground  oat  hulls 

National  Produce  Company,  Evansville,  Ind. 
National  Horse  Feed  

8059 

2.0 

9.0 

16.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

Neumann  Company,  John  G.,  Evansville,  Ind. 
Black  Beauty  Horse  Feed 

7988 

2.0 

9.0 

16.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

Newsome  Feed  & Grain  Company, 

Pittsburgh,  Pa. 

Special  Palmo  Midds  _ 

7624 

6.0 

15.0 

7.0 

Cleaning  wheat  middlings,  cotton- 

Palmo Mixed  Feed  

9173 

6.0 

10.0 

16.0 

seed  oil,  palm  oil 

Cleaning  wheat  middlings  (with 

Special  Palmo  Mixed  Feed 

9365 

5.0 

10.0 

18.0 

ground  wheat  screenings)  cob  meal, 
palm  oil,  (by-product  from  manu- 
facture tin  plate) 

Cleaning  wheat  middlings,  ground 

Palmo  Midds  

9891 

7.0 

16.0 

9.0 

wheat  screenings,  ground  delinted 
cottonseed  hulls,  palm  oil  from 
manufacture  tin  plate 

Cleaning  wheat  middlings,  ground 

Northern  Illinois  Cereal  Company, 

Lockport,  111. 

Peru  C.  & 0.  Horse  Feed 

4116 

3.0 

8.5 

12.0 

wheat  screenings,  palm  oil  from 
manufacture  tin  plate 

Corn,  oat  middlings,  oat  shorts,  oat 

Famous  Feed  _ 

6514 

3.0 

9.0 

12.0 

hulls 

Corn,  oat  middlings,  oat  shorts,  oat 

hulls 

Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

percent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Odon  Milling  Company,  Odon,  Ind. 

Omco  Dairy  Feed  

Ohio  Valley  Seed  Company,  Evansville,  Ind. 

8384 

3.2 

13.7 

11.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  wheat  bran,  wheat 
middlings,  ground  wheat  screenings, 
corn  bran,  corn  meal,  1%  salt 

Excello  Horse  Feed 

5111 

4.0 

14.0 

11.0 

Com,  oats,  barley,  wheat  bran,  cot- 
tonseed meal,  brewers  dried  grains, 
alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

Sunny  South  Horse  & Mule  Feed 

76418 

2.5 

10.0 

14.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa,  molasses 

Big  Deal  Horse  & Mule  Feed 

8341 

2.0 

8.0 

16.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  com  bran, 
kafir  com  bran,  molasses 

Olney  Milling  Company,  Olney,  111. 

General  Purpose  Perfection  Feed 

5001 

2.8 

10.3 

10.5 

Com  meal,  wheat  bran,  alfalfa  meai, 
molasses 

Omaha  Alfalfa  Milling  Company,  Omaha,  Neb. 

Peerless  Alfalmo  Horse  Feed 

5715 

2.0 

10.0 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

Cream  Alfalfa  Dairy  Feed  No.  2 

6602 

2.5 

16.0 

18.0 

Corn,  wheat  bran,  cottonseed  meal, 
alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

Peerless  Summer  Feed  __  __  

8778 

2.0 

10.0 

12.0 

Oats,  alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

Omaha  Special  Horse  Feed  

8974 

1.5 

9.0 

18.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

Peerless  Horse  Feed  

8075 

1.5 

p.o 

18.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

Alcorno  Horse  Feed  

8976 

1.5 

9.0 

18.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

Evergreen  Horse  Feed  . 

8977 

1.5 

9.0 

18.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

Green  Meadow  Dairy  Feed 

8978 

0.5 

10.0 

25.0 

Alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

Alfalmo  _ 

8979 

0.5 

10.0 

20.0 

Alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

Beauty  Dairy  Feed 

8981 

3.0 

24.0 

20.0 

Corn,  wheat  bran,  alfalfa  meal,  cot- 
tonseed meal,  linseed  oilmeal 

Cream  Alfalfa  Dairy  No.  3 _ 

8982 

2.0 

11.0 

16.0 

Corn,  alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

Cream  Alfalfa  Dairy  No.  1 

8983 

3.0 

20.0 

18.0 

Corn,  wheat  bran,  alfalfa  meal,  cot- 
tonseed meal,  molasses 

Perfection  Horse  Feed 

8984 

2.0 

9.0 

16.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

Park  & Pollard  Company  of  Illinois,  The, 
Chicago,  111. 

Stevens  44  Dairy  Ration 

Peters  Mill  Company,  M.  C.,  Omaha,  Neb. 

8046 

5.0 

24.0 

14.0 

Linseed  oil  meal,  cottonseed  meal, 
wheat  bran  with  mill  run  ground 
wheat  screenings,  corn  gluten  feed, 
cocoanut  oil  meal,  pea  meal,  corn 
distillers’  grains,  brewers’  dried 
grains,  ground  barley,  wheat  mid- 
dlings, hominy  meal,  corn  germ 
meal,  buckwheat  middlings,  corn 
feed  meal,  salt 

Peters’  King  Com  Sugar  Feed 

4660 

1.5 

9.0 

18.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

Peters’  Alfalfa  Queen  Dairy  Feed 

4750 

3.0 

17.5 

12.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  corn  gluten  meal, 
corn  meal,  alfalfa,  molasses 

Peters’  Rabbit  Mule  Feed 

6566 

1.5 

9.0 

18.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa,  molasses 

Peters’  High-Score  Alfalfa  Molasses  Feed 

6815 

0.5 

10.0 

26.0 

Alfalfa,  molasses 

Peters’  Arab  Horse  Feed 

9164 

2.0 

10.0 

16.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa,  molasses 

Peters’  Re-Peter  Horse  Feed  

9166 

1.5 

10.0 

18.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa,  molasses 

Peters’  June  Pasture  Alfalfa  & Molasses  Feed 

9166 

0.5 

10.0 

26.0 

Alfalfa,  molasses 

Peters’  Alfal-Fat  Alfalfa  & Molasses  Feed 

9167 

0.5 

10.0 

26.0 

Alfalfa,  molasses 

Peters’  Sell-A-Gen  Horse  & Mule  Feed 

9199 

2.0 

10.0 

20.0 

Oats,  alfalfa,  molasses 

Prairie  State  Milling  Company,  Chicago,  111. 

Greenfield  Brand  Alfalfa  & Molasses.  

6846 

0.5 

10.0 

26.0 

Alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

Emerald  Horse  Feed  

7004 

2.0 

10.0 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  barley,  alfalfa  meal,  mo- 
lasses 

American  Horse  Feed 

7922 

3.0 

9.0 

12.0 

Corn,  rolled  oats,  rolled  barley 

Purina  Mills,  Branch,  Ralston  Purina 

Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Purina  Feed  with  Molasses 

7867 

1.7 

9.3 

13.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  1%  salt, 
molasses 

Purina  Dairy  Feed  

7869 

3.5 

20.0 

16.5 

Cottonseed  meal,  brewers  dried 
grains,  corn  gluten  feed,  alfalfa 
meal,  1%  salt,  molasses 

Purina  Fatena  Feed 

7871 

2.5 

12.0 

10.0 

Corn,  cottonseed  meal,  alfalfa 
meal,  dried  peat,  ground  wheat 
screenings,  1%  salt,  molasses 

n6 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  1 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

Purina  Mills,  Branch,  Ralston  Purina 

Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Purina  O’Molene  Peed  _ 

7874 

3.2 

9.7 

8.0 

Purina  Peed  __  __  

8477 

3.2 

11.0 

12.0 

Purina  Pig  Chow  

8743 

3.2 

14.0 

9.0 

Purina  Cow  Chow  Peed  

8744 

3.7 

24.0 

16.0 

Purity  Oats  Company  of  Davenport, 

Davenport,  Iowa 

Tom  Boy  Horse  Peed  

7083 

2.0 

9.0 

18.0 

Iowa  Hog  Peed  _ _ 

9030 

4.0 

10.0 

12.7 

Iowa  Stock  Peed  _ _ 

9040 

4.0 

10.0 

12.7 

Iowa  Dairy  Feed 

91158 

4.5 

16.0 

14.0 

Loyal  Stock  Peed  __  _ 

9399 

4.0 

10.0 

14.0 

Quaker  Oats  Company,  The,  Chicago,  111. 

Green  Cross  Horse  Feed  (Molasses  Mixed 

Feedl 

5610 

2.5 

10.0 

12.0 

Schumacher  Special  Horse  Peed 

5735 

3.7 

9.7 

8.0 

Vim  Feed 

61547 

2.0 

5.0 

28.0 

Mogul  Mixed  Molasses  Peed  _ _ _ _ 

6714 

3.0 

10.0 

15.0 

Molac  Molasses  Dairy  Feed  _ _ 

6864 

3.0 

12.0 

19.0 

Maz-All  Peed  

6889 

1.4 

8.0 

2.0 

Shamrock  Alfalfa  Molasses  Peed 

6907 

0.5 

10.0 

18.0 

Big  Mule  Molasses  Peed  Mixture 

7683 

2.5 

10.0 

15.0 

Boss  Peed 

8228 

3.0 

8.0 

12.0 

Sterling  Peed  

8229 

3.2 

10.0 

10.0 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  1%  salt, 
molasses 

Corn,  oats,  brewers  dried  grains, 
corn  feed  meal,  alfalfa  meal,  1% 
salt,  molasses 

Corn  feed  meal,  alfalfa  meal,  diges- 
ter tankage,  dried  peat,  1%  salt, 
molasses 

Cottonseed  meal,  corn  gluten  feed, 
brewers’  dried  grains,  alfalfa  meal, 
1%  salt,  molasses 


Corn,  oats,  cottonseed  meal,  alfalfa 
meal,  oat  middlings,  oat  shorts,  oat 
hulls,  molasses 

Wheat  middlings,  com  meal,  hominy 
feed,  brewers  dried  grains,  oat  mid- 
dlings, oat  shorts,  oat  hulls,  1%  salt 
Wheat  middlings,  corn  meal,  hominy 
feed,  brewers  dried  grains,  oat  mid- 
dlings, oat  shorts,  oat  hulls,  1%  salt 
Cottonseed  meal,  corn  meal,  hominy 
feed,  brewers  dried  grains,  oat  mid- 
dlings, oat  shorts,  oat  hulls,  1%  salt 
Corn  gluten  feed,  corn  feed  meal, 
hominy  feed,  oat  middlings,  oat 
shorts,  oat  hulls,  1%  salt 

Cora,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  cottonseed 
meal,  oat  middlings,  oat  shorts,  oat 
hulls,  molasses 

Corn,  oats,  oat  middlings,  oat 
shorts,  oat  hulls,  y2%  salt 
Oat  middlings,  oat  shorts,  oat  hulls 
Corn,  oats,  cottonseed  meal,  alfalfa 
meal,  ground  screenings  from 
wheat,  rye  and  barley,  oat  mid- 
dlings, oat  shorts,  oat  hulls,  mo- 
lasses 

Cottonseed  meal,  ground  screenings 
from  wheat,  rye  and  barley,  clipped 
oat  by-product,  molasses 
Toasted  corn  flakes  by-product 
Alfalfa  meal,  molasses 
Corn,  oats,  cottonseed  meal,  alfalfa 
meal,  ground  screenings  from  wheat, 
corn,  oats,  flax,  barley  and  rye,  oat 
middlings,  oat  shorts,  oat  hulls, 
V2%  salt,  molasses 

Corn,  hominy  feed,  corn  feed  meal 
(by-product  from  manufacture  of 
corn  meal  by  degerminator  process 
with  partial  extraction  of  oil),  oat 
middlings,  oat  shorts,  oat  hulls, 
V2%  salt 

Corn,  barley,  hominy  feed,  corn  feed 
meal  (by-product  from  manufac- 
ture of  corn  meal,  by  degerminator 
process  with  partial  extraction  of 
oil)  wheat  flour,  wheat  middlings 
(with  ground  wheat  screenings  not 
exceeding  mill  run)  cottonseed  meal, 
ground  puffed  rice,  ground  puffed 
wheat,  oat  middlings,  oat  shorts, 
oat  hulls,  %%  salt 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Quaker  Oats  Company,  The,  Chicago,  111. 

Victor  Feed  

8230 

3.0 

8.0 

12.0 

Corn,  hominy  feed,  com  feed  meal 
(by-product  from  manufacture  of 
corn  meal  by  degerminator  process 
with  partial  extraction  of  oil),  oat 
middlings,  oat  shorts,  oat  hulls, 
V2%  salt 

White  Diamond  Feed 

8231 

3.2 

8.0 

9.0 

Corn,  hominy  feed,  corn  feed  meal 
(by-product  from  manufacture  of 
corn  meal  by  degerminator  process 
with  partial  extraction  of  oil),  oat. 
middlings,  oat  shorts,  oat  hulls, 
y2%  salt 

Red  Star  Feed  

8232 

3.2 

8.0 

9.0 

Corn,  hominy  feed,  corn  feed  meal, 
(by-product  from  manufacture  of 
corn  meal  by  degerminator  process 
with  partial  extraction  of  oil)  oat 
middlings,  oat  shorts,  oat  hulls, 
%%  salt 

Schumacher  Feed  

8234 

3.2 

10.0 

10.0 

Corn,  barley,  hominy  feed,  corn  feed 
meal,  (by-product  from  manufac- 
ture of  corn  meal  by  degerminator 
process  with  partial  extraction  of 
oil)  wheat  flour,  wheat  middlings, 
with  ground  wheat  screenings  not 
exceeding  mill  run),  cottonseed  meal, 
ground  puffed  rice,  ground  puffed 
wheat,  oat  middlings,  oat  shorts, 
oat  hulls,  %%  salt 

Blue  Ribbon  Dairy  Feed 

8281 

5.0 

26.0 

14.0 

Hominy  feed,  corn  feed  meal  (by- 
product from  manufacture  corn 
meal  by  degerminator  process  with 
partial  extraction  of  oil),  wheat 
bran,  (with  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings not  to  exceed  mill  run),  corn 
distillers  dried  grains,  cottonseed 
meal,  new  process  linseed  oil  meal, 
oat  middlings,  oat  shorts,  oat 
hulls,  %%  salt,  molasses 

Market  Top  Feed 

8380 

3.0 

9.0 

9.0 

Corn,  barley,  hominy  feed,  corn  feed 
meal  (by-product  from  manufac- 
ture of  corn  meal  by  degerminator 
process  with  partial  extraction  of 
oil),  wheat  flour,  wheat  middlings, 
(with  ground  wheat  screenings  not 
exceeding  mill  run),  cottonseed 
meal,  ground  puffed  wheat,  ground 
puffed  rice,  oat  middlings,  oat 
shorts,  oat  hulls,  molasses 

Big  Q Dairy  Ration 

8458 

6.0 

21.0 

10.5 

Cottonseed  meal,  corn  distillers’ 
grains  and  solubles,  corn  gluten 
feed,  linseed  oil  meal,  corn  feed 
meal,  (by-product  from  manufac- 
ture of  corn  meal  by  degerminator 
process  with  partial  extraction  of 
oil),  white  wheat  middlings,  wheat 
bran  (with  ground  wheat  screenings 
not  exceeding  mill  run),  oat  mid- 
dlings, oat  shorts,  oat  hulls,  1%  salt 

Vim  Horse  Feed 

8819 

2.5 

12.0 

15.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  cottonseed 
meal,  oat  middlings,  oat  shorts,  oat 
hulls,  %%  salt,  molasses 

Golden  Sweet  Mule  Feed 

8872 

2.0 

9.0 

18.0 

Corn,  cottonseed  meal,  alfalfa  meal, 
oat  middlings,  oat  shorts,  oat  hulls, 
*4%  salt,  molasses 

n8 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


LABEL 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


tn  G«h 

O $3  s 
% 


l!e 


and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Quaker  Oats  Company,  The,  Chicago,  111. 

Quaker  Dairy  Deed  with  Molasses..  

8898 

5.5 

16.0 

16.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  corn  distillers 
grains  and  solubles,  palm  kernel  oil 
meal,  ground  screenings  from  wheat, 
barley,  rye  and  oats,  oat  middlings, 
oat  shorts,  oat  hulls,  tricalcium 
phosphate,  %%  salt,  molasses 

Big  Pig  Hog  Peed 

Ralston  Purina  Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

8949 

4.0 

13.5 

13.0 

Wheat  middlings,  (with  ground 
screenings  not  exceeding  mill  run), 
com  feed  meal,  ground  barley,  old 
process  linseed  oil  meal,  corn  gluten 
feed,  palm  kernel  oil  meal,  ground 
flax  screenings,  oat  middlings,  oat 
shorts,  oat  hulls,  calcium  phos- 
phate, %%  salt 

Brown  Mule  Peed  with  Molasses ._ 

78(77 

1.5 

9.0 

15.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  1%  salt, 
molasses 

XX  Good  Peed  with  Molasses  . 

7879 

1.5 

9.0 

16.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  1%  salt, 
molasses 

Good  Luck  Peed  with  Molasses __ 

7880 

1.5 

9.0 

15.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  1%  salt, 
molasses 

Rapier  Sugar  Feed  Company,  Owensboro,  Ky. 

Rapier’s  Mixed  Peed  _ . ...  . _____ 

5623 

4.9 

16.6 

8.5 

Wheat  bran,  shorts,  ground  screen- 
ings from  wheat,  oats,  barley  and 
flax 

Rapier’s  Molasses-Alfalfa  Hog  Peed 

6094 

2.5 

10.0 

12.8 

Alfalfa  meal,  ground  and  bolted 
screenings  from  wheat,  oats,  barley 
and  flaxseed,  molasses 

Rapier’s  Big  Pour  Horse  & Mule  Peed.  

6528 

2.0 

9.0 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa,  1%  salt,  mo- 
lasses 

Rapier’s  Red  Wing  Horse  and  Mule  Feed  __  _ 

6738 

2.0 

9.0 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  1%  salt, 
cane  molasses 

Rapier’s  Honey  Meal ___  

6878 

1.0 

9.0 

18.0 

Alfalfa  meal,  cane  molasses 

Rapier’s  Pig  Meal  __  

7072 

2.5 

12.0 

12.0 

Alfalfa  meal,  corn  feed  meal,  linseed 
meal,  ground  and  bolted  screenings 
from  wheat,  oats,  barley  and  flax- 
seed,  salt,  cane  molasses 

Rapier’s  Creamo  Dairy  Peed  _ 

7589 

3.5 

16.5 

16.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  distillers  dried 
grains,  alfalfa  meal,  linseed  meal, 
ground  and  bolted  wheat  screenings, 
salt,  molasses 

Rapier’s  Otene  Horse  & Mule  Peed  _ 

7696 

2.0 

9.0 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  1%  salt, 
molasses 

Rapier’s  Molasses  Pat  Maker 

Schaefer,  Karl  H.,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

8117 

2.0 

9.0 

18.0 

Alfalfa  meal,  ground  and  bolted 
screenings  from  wheat,  oats,  barley 
and  flaxseed,  clipped  oat  by-prod- 
uct, 1%  salt,  molasses 

Corn,  corn  bran,  wheat  bran, 
ground  wheat  screenings,  cob  meal 

Schaefer’s  Special  Filler  for  Malt  

7376 

1.0 

3.0 

25.0 

Schaefer’s  Special  Horse  Feed 

7700 

2.0 

8.0 

14.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  bran,  alfalfa  meal, 
salt,  molasses 

Shellabarger  Elevator  Company,  Decatur,  111. 

Big  S.  Horse  Peed 

7173 

2.5 

9.0 

10.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa,  molasses 

Big  “S.”  Dairy  Peed  

Simmons  & Norris,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 

8592 

4.0 

18.0 

7.0 

Wheat  bran,  alfalfa  meal,  corn  glu- 
ten feed,  corn  feed  meal,  linseed 
meal 

Simmons’  More-Milk  Dairy  Peed  

6812 

3.5 

16.5 

12.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  linseed  meal,  corn 
gluten  feed,  ground  and  bolted 
wheat  screenings,  clipped  oat  by- 
product, salt,  molasses 

Simmons  Molasses  Chop 

8461 

3.0 

10.5 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  brewers  dried  grains,  al- 
falfa meal,  molasses 

Excello  Hog  Peed  

9337 

4.5 

19.0 

6.0 

Corn  feed  meal,  hominy  feed,  wheat 
middlings,  old  process  linseed  oil 
meal,  digester  tankage,  corn  gluten 
feed 

Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 


Slick  & Company,  L.  E.,  Bloomington,  111. 
Slick’s  Safety  First  Milkmaker  Feed 


Slick’s  Safety  First  Hogmaker  Feed 


Slick’s  Safety  First  Hog  Fattener  Feed 


Slick’s  Safety  First  Steer  Fatner  Mixed  Feed- 

Slick’s  Safety  First  Steer  Developer  Mixed 
Feed  

Southern  Seed  Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Atlas  Horse  & Mule  Feed 


Atlas  Alfalfa  and  Molasses 

Economy  Horse  and  Mule  Feed 


Indiana  Atlas  Dairy  Feed 


Indiana  Economy  Dairy  Feed 


Econo  Horse  and  Mule  Feed 


Eagle  Horse  & Mule  Feed 


Economy  Dairy  Feed 


Econo  Dairy  Feed 


Atlas  Hog  Feed 


Eagle  Dairy  Feed 


Spink  Milling  Company,  The,  Washington,  Ind. 
Spink’s  Standard  Horse  Feed 

Steinmesch  Feed  & Poultry  Supply  Company, 
St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Steinmesch’s  Alfalfa  Cow  Feed  


m -i->  c$ 
cn  C«h 

_i_>  U 


c e 

£ 2 
+J  . O 
w 

cp  C ft 
® a)  m 

jj  . 'O 

£ 1 2 
A ft  w 


and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


8818 


9342 

9343 


3.0  18.0 

4.5  18.0 

5.0  13.0 

4.5  12.5 

3.0  15.0 


16.0 


10.0 

7.5 


13.0 


Alfalfa  meal,  corn  feed  meal,  wheat 
bran,  wheat  middlings,  cottonseed 
meal,  cottonseed  feed  (cottonseed 
meal,  cottonseed  hulls)  malt 
sprouts,  brewers  dried  grains,  1% 
salt,  molasses 

Alfalfa  meal,  com  feed  meal,  wheat 
middlings,  wheat  bran,  linseed  oil 
meal,  tankage,  molasses 
Alfalfa  meal,  com  feed  meal,  wheat 
middlings,  linseed  oil  meal,  tank- 
age, molasses 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  cot- 
tonseed meal,  corn  feed  meal,  al- 
falfa meal,  molasses 
Wheat  bran,  cottonseed  meal,  corn 
feed  meal,  alfalfa  meal,  molasses 


4510 

4722 

4745 

5422 

5423 

8375 

8548 

8817 


9005 


7454 


2.5  10.0 


4.0  18.0 

3.0  16.0 

2.5  9.0 

2.0  9.0 

3.0  16.0 

3.0  16.0 

3.5  12.0 

2.0  12.0 

3.5  9.5 


12.0 

25.0 

12.0 

12.0 

12.0 


22.0 

12.0 

26.0 

8.0 


Com,  oats,  alfalfa,  hominy  meal, 
cottonseed  meal,  wheat  bran,  wheat 
middlings,  y2%  salt,  molasses 

Alfalfa,  molasses 

Corn,  oats,  wheat  bran,  alfalfa, 
clover  hay,  clipped  oat  by-product, 
y2%  salt,  molasses 

Wheat  bran,  corn  meal,  cottonseed 
meal,  alfalfa,  brewers  dried  grains, 
distillers  dried  grains,  y2%  salt,  mo- 
lasses 

Wheat  bran,  com  meal,  cottonseed 
meal,  alfalfa  meal,  clover  meal, 
brewers  dried  grains,  distillers  dried 
grains,  clipped  oat  by-product,  y2% 
salt,  molasses 

Com,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  clover 
meal,  cottonseed  meal,  ground  cot- 
tonseed hulls,  flax  plant  by-product, 
y2%  salt,  molasses 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  clover 
meal,  brewers  dried  grains,  clipped 
oat  by-product,  ground  cottonseed 
hulls,  flax  plant  by-product,  y2% 
salt,  molasses 

Brewers  dried  grains,  alfalfa  meal, 

clover  meal,  cottonseed  meal,  flax 
plant  by-product,  ground  cotton- 
seed hulls,  clipped  oat  by-product, 
y2%  salt,  molasses 

Brewers  dried  grains,  alfalfa  meal, 

clover  meal,  cottonseed  meal,  ground 
cottonseed  hulls,  clipped  oat  by- 
product, flax  plant  by-product,  y2% 
salt,  molasses 

Wheat  shorts,  wheat  bran,  com  feed 
meal,  alfalfa  meal,  tankage,  y2% 
salt 

Brewers  dried  grains,  alfalfa  meal, 

clover  meal,  cottonseed  meal, 
ground  cottonseed  hulls,  clipped  oat 
by-product,  flax  plant  by-product, 
y2%  salt,  molasses 

Corn,  oats,  wheat  bran,  corn  bran, 
ground  wheat  screenings 


770  3.0 


12.0 


7.0  Grains,  seeds,  alfalfa  hay,  molasses 


120 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Sugarine  Company,  The,  Peoria,  111. 

Sugarine  Dairy  Peed  ___  _ 

8284 

3.5 

16.5 

14.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  corn  gluten  feed, 
ground  and  bolted  wheat  screenings, 
clipped  oat  by-product,  corn  dis- 
tillers dried  grains  and  solubles, 
salt,  molasses 

Sugarine  Horse  Feed,  with  Alfalfa 

8285 

2.5 

10.0 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  barley,  alfalfa,  distillers 
com  solubles,  salt,  molasses 

Sugarine  Horse  & Mule  Peed 

0286 

2.5 

9.0 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  com  distillers  dried 
grains  and  solubles,  oat  middlings, 
oat  shorts,  oat  hulls,  salt,  molasses 

Sueo  Pat  Maker  

8287 

3.5 

10.0 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  corn  distillers  dried 
grains  and  solubles,  clipped  oat  by- 
product, salt,  molasses 

Ideal  Sugared  Feed 

9044 

2.5 

12.0 

14.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  corn  distillers  dried 
grains  and  solubles,  palm  kernel 
meal,  clipped  oat  by-product, 
ground  and  bolted  wheat  screen- 
ings, calcium  carbonate,  salt,  mo- 
lasses 

Suco  Dairy  Peed  ___ 

9045 

8.0 

25.0 

16.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  corn  gluten  feed, 
corn  distillers  dried  grains  and  solu- 
bles, clipped  oat  by-product,  palm 
kernel  meal,  calcium  carbonate,  salt 

Sugarine  Hog  Meal  

Summitt,  L.  C.,  Vincennes,  Ind. 

9102 

4.0 

18.0 

14.0 

Corn  germ  meal,  corn  feed  meal, 
corn  distillers  dried  grains  and  solu- 
bles, alfalfa  meal,  linseed  meal, 
blood  flour,  palm  kernel  meal,  cal- 
cium carbonate,  salt,  molasses 

Summitt’s  Horse  Peed  

7726 

2.0 

S.O 

14.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  salt,  mo- 
lasses 

Tarkio  Molasses  Peed  Company, 

Kansas  City,  Mo. 

Tarkio  Molasses  Peed  __  

7007 

2.0 

9.0 

8.0 

Corn,  wheat  bran,  ground  and  bolted 
screenings  from  wheat,  barley  and 
flaxseed,  charred  peat,  cane  mo- 
lasses 

Tarkio  Sugared  Molasses  Pattener 

Teel  Milling  Company,  Owensville,  Ind. 

8889 

2.5 

17.0 

16.7 

Wheat  bran,  cottonseed  feed,  fcot- 
tonseed  meal,  cottonseed  hulls), 
ground  corn,  charred  peat,  cane  mo- 
lasses 

Daisy  Feed 

6137 

3.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  crushed 
wheat  screenings,  corn  bran 

Ubiko  Milling  Company,  The,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 

Ubiko  Horse  and  Stock  Peed 

Unions  Grains,  Ubiko,  Biles  Ready  Dairy 

6861 

6.0 

16.0 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  hom- 
iny meal,  brewers  dried  grains,  old 
process  linseed  meal 

Ration  . __ 

Union  Grain  & Peed  Company,  The, 

Anderson,  Ind. 

9068 

5.0 

24.0 

10.0 

Fourex  distillers  dried  grains,  choice 
cottonseed  meal,  old  process  linseed 
meal,  white  wheat  middlings,  winter 
wheat  bran,  hominy  meal,  corn 
germ  meal,  corn  gluten  feed,  brew- 
ers dried  grains,  barley  malt 
sprouts,  y2%  salt 

Union  Horse  Feed 

7151 

2.5 

8.5 

11.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa,  molasses 

Union  Dairy  Peed  . . 

8885 

2.7 

16.5 

20.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  alfalfa  meal,  sor- 
ghum bagasse  meal,  corn  feed  meal, 
ground  screenings  from  wheat,  corn, 
oats,  y2%  salt,  molasses 

Union  Hog  Feed  __  

9421 

4.0 

21.0 

9.0 

Corn  feed  meal,  corn  gluten  meal, 
wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings  and 
ground  wheat  screenings,  old  pro- 
cess linseed  oil  meal,  digester  tank- 
age, corn  bran,  molasses 

Daisy  Dairy  Peed  

9424 

2.7 

11.5 

20.0 

Cottonsed  meal,  alfalfa  meal,  sor- 
ghum bagasse  meal,  corn  feed  meal, 
ground  screenings  from  wheat,  corn 
and  oats,  y2%  salt,  molasses 

121 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

United  States  Stock  Food  Company, 

Kansas  City,  Mo. 

Eagle  Brand  Horse  & Mule  Feed  _ 

4954 

3.5 

10.0 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa,  molasses 

Eagle  Brand  Alfalfa— Molasses  Feed 

6063 

1.0 

9.0 

16.0 

Alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

Walsh  & Company,  James,  Lawreneeburg,  Ind. 

Kuhmele  

8803 

6.0 

21.8 

16.1 

Corn,  wheat  middlings,  cottonseed 

Morlac  

8914 

6.0 

21.8 

16.1 

meal,  brewers  dried  grains,  alfalfa 
meal,  salt 

Corn,  corn  distillers  dried  grains, 

Morlac  “B” 

9181 

6.0 

21.8 

16.1 

wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  brew- 
ers dried  grains,  alfalfa  meal,  cot- 
tonseed meal,  salt 

Corn,  corn  distillers  dried  grains. 

Morlac  “C”  _ 

9261 

5.0 

21.0 

17.0 

ground  barley  screenings,  brewers 
dried  grains,  alfalfa  meal,  cotton- 
seed meal,  salt 

Corn,  corn  distillers  dried  grains,  al- 

Morlac “D”  

9262 

3.3 

15.0 

26.3 

falfa  meal,  brewers  dried  grains, 
cottonseed  meal,  ground  barley 
screenings,  salt 

Brewers  dried  grains,  ground  barley 
screenings,  wheat  middlings,  corn 
distillers  dried  grains,  cottonseed 
meal,  alfalfa  meal,  salt 

Corn,  wheat  middlings,  cottonseed 

Kuhmele  “B”  __  _ 

9350 

5.5 

21.8 

19.5 

Walsh  Hog  Feed _ 

9387 

5.0 

23.5 

18.5 

meal,  brewers  dried  grains,  alfalfa 
meal,  salt 

Wheat  middlings,  clover  meal,  corn 

Wash-Co.  Alfalfa  Mixed  Feed  & Milling 
Company,  Fort  Calhoun,  Neb. 

Wash-Co.  Horse  and  Mule  Feed 

3755 

2.0 

10.0 

12.0 

germ  meal,  alfalfa  meal,  corn  dis- 
tillers dried  grains,  linseed  oil  meal, 
tankage,  salt 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  salt,  mo- 

Alfalgreen __  _ - 

3839 

0.5 

12.0 

20.0 

lasses 

Alfalfa  meal,  1%  salt,  molasses 

Butlers  Strong  Horse  Feed 

• 6876 

2.0 

9.0 

25.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa,  molasses 

Special  Horse  Feed  _ _ __ 

8278 

2.0 

10.0 

12.0 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  molasses 

Weiss  Alfalfa  Stock  Food  Company,  The  Otto, 
Wichita,  Kansas 

The  Otto  Weiss  Alfalfa  Stock  Food 

2983 

3.5 

11.0 

14.0 

Alfalfa,  corn  chop,  wheat  bran, 

The  Otto  Weiss  Alfalfa  & Corn  Chop 

3600 

3.0 

11.0 

14.0 

shorts,  linseed  oil  meal,  salt 

Alfalfa,  crushed  corn 

Western  Grain  Products  Company, 

West  Hammond,  111. 

Hammond  Horse  Feed  . 

4864 

2.8 

12.0 

11.0 

Com,  oats,  barley,  linseed  meal, 

Special  Hammond  Dairy  Feed 

7347 

3.5 

15.5 

12.0 

ground  screenings  from  wheat,  corn, 
oats  and  barley,  3/io  % salt,  mo- 
lasses 

Cottonseed  meal,  distillers  dried  corn 

Calumet  Alfalfa  Horse  Feed 

8327 

2.5 

10.0 

15.0 

grains,  malt  sprouts,  ground  clip- 
ped oat  by-product,  ground  screen- 
ings from  wheat,  corn,  oats  and 
barley,  salt,  molasses 

Corn,  rolled  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  lin- 

Calumet Dairy  Feed 

9236 

4.6 

20.0 

14.8 

seed  meal,  salt,  molasses 

Corn,  wheat  bran,  cottonseed  meal. 

Hammond  Dairy  Feed 

9417 

3.5 

16.5 

14.2 

corn  gluten  feed,  brewers  dried 
grains,  ground  wheat  screenings, 
ground  clipped  oat  by-product,  salt 
Cottonseed  meal,  corn  distillers 

Wiedlocher  & Sons,  Springfield,  111. 

Wiedlochers’  Faultless  Horse  Feed 

8450 

3.0 

10.0 

10.0 

grains,  malt  sprouts,  ground  clip- 
ped oat  by-product,  ground  screen- 
ings from  wheat,  corn,  oats  and 
barley,  ground  cocoa  shells,  salt, 
molasses 

Corn,  oats,  alfalfa  meal,  y2%  salt, 

Wiedlochers’  Congress  Horse  Feed ___ 

8451 

3.0 

9.0 

7.0 

molasses 

Corn,  oats,  barley,  %%  salt 

122 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

i 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Wilkinson  & Company,  T.  B., 

Knightstown,  Ind. 

Combination  Dairy  Deed  

Wood,  Stubbs  & Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

7654 

3.0 

11.0 

10.0 

Oats,  rye,  corn  and  cob  meal 
(crushed  ear  corn)  cottonseed  meal, 
salt 

Red  Mill  Molasses  Feed  

7107 

2.0 

9.0 

16.0 

Com,  oats,  corn  meal,  alfalfa  meal, 
salt,  cane  molasses 

CALF  MEALS 

American  Milling  Company,  Peoria,  111. 

Sucrene  Calf  Meal 

Arcady  Farms  Milling  Company,  Chicago,  111. 

6722 

4.0 

20.0 

3.0 

Wheat  middlings,  corn  meal,  linseed 
meal,  malt  flour,  soluble  starch 
from  corn,  dried  skim  milk,  soluble 
blood  flour,  bone  meal 

Arcady  (R.  K.  D.)  Calf  Meal 

Blatchford  Calf  Meal  Company,  Waukegan,  IU 

9259 

5.0 

25.0 

7.0 

Wheat  flour,  malt  flour,  cottonseed 
meal,  linseed  oil  meal,  oat  meal, 
powdered  milk,  y2%  salt 

Blatchford’s  Calf  Meal 

Butler  & Company,  Edw.  J.,  Chicago,  111. 

8722 

5.0 

24.0 

6.7 

Fenugreek,  anise,  locust  bean  meal, 
flaxseed,  wheat  flour,  blood  flour, 
barley  meal,  malt  sprout  meal, 
bean  meal,  pea  meal,  rice  polish,  old 
process  linseed  oil  meal,  cocoa  shell 
meal,  cocoanut  meal,  cottonseed 
meal,  dried  milk,  salt 

Butler’s  Station  Calf  Meal 

Hales  & Edwards  Company,  Chicago,  111. 

7989 

4.0 

32.0 

3.5 

Blood  flour,  barley  flour,  linseed  oil 
meal,  reddog  flour 

Red  Horn  Calf  Meal  

International  Stock  Food  Company, 
Minneapolis,  Minn. 

8789 

6.0 

18.0 

6.0 

Dried  buttermilk,  oat  flour,  barley 
flour,  reddog  flour,  com  flour,  old 
process  linseed  oil  meal,  alfalfa  leaf 
flour,  dextrose,  not  over  1%  cal- 
cium carbonate,  y2%  salt 

International  Grofast  Calf  Meal 

International  Sugar  Feed  Company, 
Minneapolis,  Minn. 

6880 

5.0 

25.0 

10.0 

Fenugreek  seed,  locust  bean  meal, 
linseed  oil  meal,  reddog  flour, 
ground  screenings  from  wheat,  oats, 
barley,  flax 

International  Grofast  Calf  Meal 

Krause  Milling  Company,  Chas.  A., 

9091 

5.0 

25.0 

10.0 

Fenugreek  seed,  locust  mean,  linseed 
oil  meal,  ground  screenings  from 
wheat,  oats,  barley,  flax 

Milwaukee,  Wis. 

Krause  Calf  Meal 

Martin  & Company,  John  C., 

9080 

3.5 

30.0 

7.0 

Blood  flour,  old  process  linseed  oil 
meal,  hominy  feed,  wheat  middlings, 
wheat  reddog  flour 

Mineral  Point,  Wis. 

Martin’s  Calf  Meal 

Maumee  Valley  Mills,  New  Haven,  Ind. 

5047 

6.0 

26.0 

6.0 

Fenugreek,  cottonseed  meal,  wheat 
germ  middlings,  wheat  flour,  corn 
meal,  linseed  oil  meal,  flaxseed, 
blood  meal,  charcoal,  salt 

Star  Calf  Feed 

Peters  Mill  Company,  M.  C.,  Omaha,  Neb. 

9326 

5.0 

24.0 

6.0 

Blood  meal,  linseed  oil  meal,  hominy 
feed  meal,  reddog  flour,  wheat  mid- 
dlings, cottonseed  meal,  copra  oil 
meal,  salt 

Peters’  Submilk  Calf  Meal 

8636 

3.0 

22.0 

8.0 

Linseed  oil  meal,  alfalfa  meal,  corn 
feed  meal,  blood  meal,  reddog  flour 

Prussian  Remedy  Company,  St.  Paul,  Minn. 

Prussian  Calf  Meal 

Purina  Mills,  Branch,  Ralston  Purina 

Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

7801 

5.5 

25.0 

5.5 

Anise  seed,  fenugreek  seed,  lime,  so- 
dium chloride,  locust  bean  meal,  oat 
meal,  blood  meal,  corn  meal,  cot- 
tonseed meal,  linseed  meal,  corn  glu- 
ten meal,  wheat  flour,  rye  middlings 

Purina  Calf  Chow  _ 

7872 

4.0 

33.0 

3.5 

Hominy  feed,  wheat  flour,  blood 
flour,  linseed  meal 

Quaker  Oats  Company,  The,  Chicago,  111. 

Schumacher  Calf  Meal  

Roberts  Veterinary  Company,  Dr.  David, 
Waukesha,  Wis. 

8942 

8.0 

18.0 

4.0 

Oat  meal,  wheat  meal,  ground  flax- 
seed, milk  albumen,  old  process  lin- 
seed oil  meal,  %%  bicarbonate  of 
soda 

Dr.  David  Roberts  Calf  Meal 

6023 

7.0 

25.0 

6.5 

Sassafras,  salt,  chalk,  charcoal,  lo- 
cust bean  meal,  blood  meal,  flax- 
seed oil  cake  meal,  oat  meal 

123 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


LABEL 


Ryde  & Company,  Chicago,  111. 
Rydes  Cream  Calf  Meal 


Simmons  & Norris,  Cincinnati,  Ohio. 
Simmons’  Butter-Fat  Calf  Meal 


Slick  & Company,  L.  E.,  Bloomington,  111. 
Slick’s  Safety  First  Calf  Meal 

Sugarine  Company,  The,  Peoria,  111. 

Sugarine  Calf  Meal 

Sugarota  Calf  Meal  Company,  The, 

Winona,  Minn. 

Sugarota  Calf  Meal 

Ward  & Company,  Montgomery,  Chicago,  111. 
Pilgrim’s  Calf  Meal 

Wilbur  Stock  Food  Company,  Milwaukee,  Wis. 
Wilbur’s  Calf  Meal 


Williams  & Son,  F.  I.,  North  Adams,  Mich. 
“Williams  Calf  Meal”  

POULTRY  AND  SCRATCH  FEED 

Acme-Evans  Company,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 
E-Z.  Chick  Feed  

E-Z.  Scratch  Feed  


Acme  Scratch  Feed  

Acme  Chick ^ 

Alfocorn  Milling  Company,  East  St.  Louis,  111. 
Alfocorn  Hen  Feed  

Diamond  “D”  Hen  Feed  (With  Grit) 

Alfocorn  Chick  Feed 

Wish-Bone  Scratch  Feed 

Wish-Bone  Chick  Feed  

Wish-Bone  Scratch  Feed  With  Grit 

Amendt  Milling  Company,  Monroe,  Mich. 

Amco  Chick  Feed 

American  Hominy  Company,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 
Homco  Chick  Feed 

Homco  Poultry  Developer 
Homco  Scratch  Feed 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

8856 

5.0 

25.0 

6.0 

Fenugreek,  anise,  cottonseed  meal, 
wheat  flour,  blood  flour,  flaxseed 
meal,  hominy  feed,  beans,  locust 
bean  meal,  lentils,  cocoa  shell  meal, 
salt 

6810 

5.0 

26.0 

6.0 

Fenugreek,  anise  seed,  wheat  flour, 
cottonseed  meal,  flaxseed  meal, 
carob  beans,  bean  meal,  lentils,  co- 
coa shells,  salt 

9844 

4.0 

30.0 

7.0 

Wheat  middlings,  reddog  flour,  corn 
feed  meal,  linseed  oil  meal,  fine 
blood  meal 

6796 

4.0 

20.0 

3.0 

Wheat  middlings,  corn  meal,  linseed 
meal,  malt  flour,  soluble  starch 
from  corn,  dried  skim  milk,  soluble 
blood  flour,  bone  meal 

6174 

6.0 

25.0 

6.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  old  process  linseed 
meal,  ground  wheat,  ground  malt 

3034 

5.0 

24.0 

5.0 

Locust  bean  meal,  wheat  flour,  flax- 
seed, cottonseed  meal,  beans,  lentils 

6618 

2.0 

10.0 

10.0 

Gentian,  fenugreek,  anise  seed,  blood 
root,  elecampane,  ginger,  quassia, 
elm  bark,  bicarbonate  of  soda,  char- 
coal, salt,  ground  screenings  from 
flax,  wheat,  rye 

7838 

1.2 

13.5 

6.2 

Anise,  linseed  oil  meal,  blood  meal, 
toasted  corn  flakes  by-product 

5641 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  millet  seed,  steel  cut 
oats,  charcoal,  mica  grit 

5721 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  sunflower 
seed,  charcoal,  oyster  shells,  granite 
and  mica  grit 

6292 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oyster 
shells,  limestone  grit 

6493 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  carbonate 
of  lime  (limestone) 

5339 

3.5 

10.0 

4.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo  maize,  sun- 
flower seed 

5990 

3.5 

10.0 

4.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo  maize,  sun- 
flower seed,  carbonate  of  lime 
(limestone) 

6780 

3.5 

10.0 

4.0 

Corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  whole  wheat 
screenings 

9078 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  wild 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 

9079 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  pigeon 
grass 

9140 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley,  wild 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  carbon- 
ate of  lime  (limestone) 

■ 5022 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Corn,  kafir,  milo  maize,  hulled  oats, 
millet  seed,  whole  wheat  screenings, 
limestone  and  quartz  grit 

6568 

2.5 

9.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  hen-e-ta 
grit,  (sodium,  lime,  silica,  phos- 
phorus compounds) 

. 8491 

3.0 

11.0 

4.0 

Wheat,  com,  kafir,  homcoline,  (corn 
germ  meal)  buckwheat 

. 8609 

2.5 

10.5 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  buck- 
wheat, sunflower  seed,  homcoline 
(corn  germ  meal) 

124 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

American  Hominy  Company,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Standard  Scratch  Heed  With  Grit 

8754 

2.5 

9.0 

6.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley, 
whole  wheat  screenings,  carbonate 
of  lime  (limestone) 

Standard  Scratch  Feed 

8795 

2.5 

9.0 

6.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley, 
whole  wheat  screenings 

Hexite  Scratch  Feed  With  Grit __ 

8756 

2.5 

10.0 

7.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley, 
homcoline  (corn  germ  meal)  sun- 
flower seed,  carbonate  of  lime  (lime- 
stone) 

Hexite  Scratch  Feed  

8757 

2.5 

10.0 

7.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley, 
homcoline  (corn  germ  meal)  sun- 
flower seed 

Homco  Dry  Mash  

8795 

5.0 

15.0 

9.0 

Homcoline  (corn  germ  meal)  homco 
hominy  feed,  wheat  bran,  wheat 
middlings,  linseed  meal,  meat 
scraps,  alfalfa,  molasses 

Shrivelled  wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet 
seed 

Homco  Chick  Feed 

American  Milling  Company,  Peoria,  111. 

9274 

3.0 

9.0 

3.0 

Tip  Top  Chick  Feed 

,5664 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  pigeon 
grass  seed 

Tip  Top  Chick  Feed  With  5%  Grit 

5665 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  pigeon 
grass  seed,  marble  grit 

Sucrene  Chick  Feed 

6569 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet 

Sucrene  Chick  Feed  with  5%  Grit  

6561 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  marble 
grit 

Cluck  Cluck  Scratch  Feed 

8241 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  com,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 

Sucrene  Scratch  Feed 

8242 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 

Tip  Top  Scratch  Feed 

8243 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  com,  kafir,  barley,  oats,  wild 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 

Tip  Top  Scratch  Feed,  With  5%  Grit.  

8244 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats,  wild 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  marble 
grit 

Sucrene  Scratch  Feed,  With  5%  Grit 

8246 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  marble 
grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  marble 
grit 

Cluck  Cluck  Scratch  Feed,  With  5%  Grit 

8253 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Sucrene  Poultry  Mash 

8730 

3.5 

18.0 

12.0 

Corn  feed  meal,  alfalfa  meal,  meat 
scraps,  corn  distillers  dried  grains, 
wheat  bran,  linseed  meal,  palm  ker- 
nel meal,  calcium  carbonate,  salt 

Sucrene  Pigeon  Feed 

Arcady  Farms  Milling  Company,  Chicago,  111. 

9951 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  peas,  buck- 
wheat, sunflower  seed 

Sunkist  Poultry  Feed  

8801 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley, 
whole  wheat  screenings,  wild  buck- 
wheat, sunflower  seed 

Atlantic  Poultry  Feed  

Atlantic  Poultry  Feed  With  Grit,  Shell  and 

9034 

2.0 

9.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  wild 
buckwheat,  whole  wheat  screenings 

Charcoal  __  

Sunkist  Poultry  Feed  With  Grit,  Shell,  Char- 

9035 

2.0 

9.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  wild 
buckwheat,  whole  wheat  screenings, 
1%  charcoal,  5%  oyster  shell,  5% 
limestone  grit 

coal  

Arcady  Farms  Milling  Company,  Rondout,  111. 

9260 

2.0 

9.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley,  wild 
buckwheat,  whole  wheat  screenings, 
1%  charcoal,  5%  oyster  shell,  5% 
limestone  grit 

Arcady  (R.  K.  D.)  Poultry  Feed 

Arcady  (R.  K.  D.)  Poultry  Feed— With  Grit- 

7510 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 

Shell— Charcoal  

7520 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  com,  kafir,  oats,  barley, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  1% 
charcoal,  3%  oyster  shell,  3%  lime- 
stone grit 

125 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Arcady  Farms  Milling  Company,  Rondout,  111. 
Arcady  (R.  K.  D.)  Chick  Feed,  With  Grit— 

Charcoal  

7521 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  hulled 
oats,  1%  charcoal,  6%  limestone 
grit 

Arcady  (R.  K.  D.)  Chick  Feed 

7522 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  hulled 
oats 

Arcady  (R.  K.  D.)  Baby  Chick  Feed  . 

Arcady  (R.  K.  D.)  Baby  Chick  Feed  With 

7523 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  hulled 
oats 

Grit — Charcoal  __  

Ashbrook  Company,  The  J.  S.,  Mattoon,  111. 

7524 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  hulled 
oats,  1%  charcoal,  6%  limestone  grit 

Peerless  Scratch  Feed  _ 

4181 

3.6 

10.0 

6.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  buckwheat, 
sunflower  seed,  linseed  meal 

Peerless  Chick  Feed  

5095 

3.5 

10.5 

6.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  steel  cut  oats, 
millet  seed 

Diamond  A.  Scratch  Feed 

7904 

2.5 

9.0 

6.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  inilo, 
oats,  buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 

iDamond  A.  Scratch  Feed  (With  GritV 

7941 

2.5 

9.0 

6.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  milo 
maize,  oats,  buckwheat,  sunflower 
seed,  5%  quartz  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  oats,  buck- 
wheat, sunflower  seed,  linseed  oil 
cake,  oyster  shell,  quartz  grit 

Peerless  Scratch  Feed  With  Grit 

8043 

3.0 

10.0 

6.0 

Diamond  A.  Chick  Feed 

9386 

3.0 

10.0 

6.0 

Corn,  kafir,  milo,  millet  seed 

Badenoch  Company,  J.  J.,  Chicago,  111. 

Eg-a-day  Meat-Cereal  Mash  ___  

4496 

4.0 

15.0 

8.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  al- 
falfa meal,  oat  meal,  corn  meal, 
beef  scraps,  linseed  oil  meal,  shells 

C-er-lay  Special  Poultry  Feed 

6100 

2.5 

9.5 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  rye,  wild 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  char- 
coal, limestone  grit 

Sunflower  Pigeon  Feed  With  Grit 

6647 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  hemp  seed,  peas, 
milo  maize,  millet,  buckwheat,  char- 
coal, limestone  grit 

Sunflower  Pigeon  Feed  No  Grit 

6648 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  hemp  seed,  peas, 
milo  maize,  millet,  buckwheat,  char- 
coal 

C-er-lay  Poultry  Feed  With  Grit 

8765 

2.5 

9.5 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 
milo,  buckwheat,  sunflower  seed, 
oyster  shells,  limestone  grit 

C-er-lay  Poultry  Feed  No  Grit 

8766 

2.5 

9.5 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 
milo,  buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 

Daily  Egg  Poultry  Feed  No  Grit  

8768 

2.5 

9.5 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 

. milo,  whole  screenings  from  wheat 
and  barley,  sunflower  seed 

C-er-lay  Developing  Feed  No  Grit 

8769 

2.5 

9.5 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  milo,  millet 
seed,  hulled  oats 

Daily  Egg  Poultry  Feed  With  Grit  

8770 

2.5 

9.5 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 
milo,  whole  screenings  from  wheat 
and  barley,  sunflower  seed,  oyster 
shells,  limestone  grit 

C-er-lay  Developing  Feed  With  Grit 

8771 

2.5 

9.5 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  milo,  millet 
seed,  hulled  oats,  limestone  grit 

C-er-lay  Fine  Chick  Feed  With  Grit 

8772 

2.5 

9.5 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  millet  seed, 
steel  cut  oats,  hulled  oats,  lime- 
stone grit 

C-er-lay  Fine  Chick  Feed  No  Grit 

8773 

2.5 

9.5 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  millet  seed, 
steel  cut  oats,  hulled  oats 

Egspay  Poultry  Feed  No  Grit  

8774 

2.5 

9.5 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley, 
milo,  wild  buckwheat,  sunflower 
seed,  whole  screenings  from  wheat 
and  barley 

Egspay  Poultrv  Feed  With  Grit 

8775 

2.5 

9.5 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley, 
milo,  wild  buckwheat,  sunflower 
seed,  whole  screenings  from  wheat 
and  barley,  oyster  shells,  lime- 
stone grit 

126 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Barrett,  J.  C.,  South  Bend,  Ind. 

Barrett’s  Henola  Dry  Mash 

Bash  & Company,  Inc.,  C.  E.,  Huntington,  Ind. 

6924 

2.0 

12.0 

3.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  corn 
meal,  corn  gluten  meal,  linseed  oil 
meal,  heneta  grit  (sodium,  lime,  sil- 
ica, phosphorous  compounds) 

Busy  Biddy  Scratch  Eeed 

5679 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  linseed 
oil  meal 

Busy  Biddy  Egg  Mash  & Chick  Grower 

Bash’s  Seed  Store,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

6102 

3.0 

17.5 

7.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  corn 
feed  meal,  alfalfa  meal,  linseed  oil 
meal,  meat  scraps,  charcoal,  salt 

Bash’s  Scratch  Eeed 

Bauermeister  Company,  Inc.,  Chas.  W., 

Terre  Haute,  Ind. 

4479 

2.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Corn,  whole  wheat  screenings,  cane 
seed,  sunflower  seeds,  non-germinat- 
ing garden  seeds,  charcoal,  lime- 
stone grit,  oyster  shells 

Bauermeister’s  Star  Eeed  

2408 

2.0 

8.0 

8.0 

Wheat,  com,  kafir,  millet  seed 

Bauermeister  Scratch  Eeed  

3215 

2.0 

9.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  hen-e-ta 
grit  (sodium,  lime,  silica,  phosphor- 
ous compounds) 

Bauermeister’s  Chick  Eeed 

5221 

2.0 

8.0 

3.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  steel  cut  oats, 
millet  seed,  hen-e-ta  grit  (lime,  sodi- 
um, silica,  phosphorous  compounds) 
Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  corn 
feed  meal,  linseed  oil  meal,  corn  glu- 
ten meal,  hen-e-ta  grit  (sodium, 
lime,  silica,  phosphorous  com- 
pounds) 

Bauermeister  Dry  Mash __ 

Belt  Elevator  & Eeed  Company, 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

5302 

2.0 

12.0 

5.0 

Mixed  Hen  Feed 

5905 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  charcoal, 
oyster  shell 

Hen-O-La  Mash  _ 

Berdan  & Company,  Toledo,  Ohio 

8015 

2.0 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  corn 
gluten  feed,  com  feed  meal,  hominy 
feed,  linseed  oil  meal,  ground  wheat 
screenings,  heneta  grit  (sodium, 
lime,  silica,  phosphorous  com- 
pounds) 

Old  Tavern  Scratch  Eeed  (With  Grit)  _ 

3582 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  charcoal, 
marble  grit 

Old  Tavern  Scratch  Eeed 

5744 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  com,  kafir,  barley,  buck- 
wheat, sunflower  seeds 

Old  Tavern  Chick  Eeed  With  Grit 

6469 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  com,  kafir,  millet  seed,  oat 
meal,  wild  buckwheat,  (with  not  to 
exceed  %%  miscellaneous  wild  seeds 
occurring  in  above  seeds  and  grains) 
charcoal,  marble  grit 

Old  Tavern  Chick  Eeed  Without  Grit 

Big  Four  Elevator  & Milling  Company, 
Mattoon,  111. 

6470 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  oat 
meal,  wild  buckwheat  (with  not  to 
exceed  y2%  miscellaneous  wild  seeds 
occurring  in  above  seeds  and  grains) 
charcoal 

Big  4 Scratch  Eeed 

8588 

3.6 

10.0 

6.0 

Wheat,  com,  kafir,  oats,  buckwheat, 
sunflower  seed,  linseed  meal 

Bonner  & Company,  E.  J.,  Lafayette,  Ind. 

Bonner’s  Scratch  Eeed 

8142 

2.5 

10.0 

6.0 

Wheat,  com,  kafir,  oats,  barley,  sun- 
flower seed 

Boonville  Milling  Company,  Boonville,  Ind. 

Boone  Poultry  Eeed £ 

7193 

2.5 

9.5 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  sorghum  cane  seed,  sun- 
flower seed 

Boone  Chick  Eeed 

7433 

3.0 

8.5 

4.0 

Wheat,  corn,  sorghum  cane  seed,  sun- 
flower seed,  millet 

Brizius  Company,  The  Chas.  W., 

Newburgh,  Ind. 

Log  Cabin  Scratch  Eeed 

7979 

2.5 

9.0 

6.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  milo, 
oats,  buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 

Loe:  Cabin  Scratch  Grains,  With  Grit 

8083 

2.5 

9.0 

6.0 

Wheat,  com,  kafir,  barley,  milo, 
oats,  buckwheat,  sunflower  seed, 
quartz  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo 

Log  Cabin  Chick  Feed 

8515 

3.0 

10.0 

6.0 

127 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Brook  Flour  & Feed  Mill,  Brook,  Ind. 

Rising  Sun  Poultry  Feed 

6636 

2.0 

9.0 

6.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  millet  seed, 
meat  scraps,  mica  grit 

Browning  Milling  Company,  W.  A., 

Evansville,  Ind. 

Brownings  Mxd  Chicken  Feed 

0477 

2.0 

9.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  oats,  granite  grit 

Burrell  & Morgan,  Elkhart,  Ind. 

Morgans  Feed  

5876 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seeds 

Burge-Thomas  Milling  Company,  Marion,  Ind.50 

Tip  Top  Scratch  Feed . 

7340 

2.5 

9.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  oats,  barley,  buck- 
wheat, charcoal,  oyster  shells 

Butler  & Company,  Edw.  J.,  Chicago,  111. 

Butler’s  Special  Poultry  Feed,  “With  Grit”___ 

6201 

2.5 

9.5 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats,  sun- 
flower seed,  shells,  charcoal,  mica 
grit 

Butler’s  Special  Poultry  Feed,  “No  Grit” 

6202 

2.5 

9.5 

5.0 

Wheat,  com,  kafir,  oats,  barley,  sun- 
flower seed,  charcoal 

Byrnes  & Company,  W.  J.,  Chicago,  111. 

Royal  Meat  Mash 

4786 

4.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  kafir, 
corn  meal,  alfalfa  meal,  linseed  oil 
meal,  beef  scraps,  oyster  shells 

Royal  Brand  Poultry  Feed 

4787 

3.0 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  oyster 
shell,  limestone  grit 

Daisy  Chick  Feed,  With  Grit 

5065 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  com,  kafir,  oats,  millet,  peas, 
limestone  grit 

Daisy  Chick  Feed 

5066 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  millet,  peas 

Jewel  Poultry  Feed 

5260 

2.5 

9.5 

10.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  oyster 
shell,  mica  grit 

Royal  Eigeon  Feed 

5780 

3.0 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  hemp,  peas,  mil- 
let, buckwheat,  mica  grit 

Royal  Poultry  Feed  No  Grit 

6274 

3.0 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo  maize,  oats, 
barley,  buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 

Jewel  Poultrv  Feed  Without  Grit 

6934 

2.5 

9.5 

5.0 

Wheat,  com,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 

Cairo  Milling  Company,  Cairo,  111. 

Prize  Poultry  Feed 

8457 

3.5 

10.0 

6.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  sunflower  seed, 
whole  wheat  screenings 

Callahan  Company,  The  C.,  Lafayette,  Ind. 

Purdue  Line  First  Prize  Chick  Feed 

6608 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  hulled  oats,  millet 

Purdue  Line  White  Hen  Scratch  Feed 

Carroll  & Son,  E.  L.,  Decatur,  Ind. 

6600 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  linseed 
oil  cake 

Carrolls  Chicken  Feed 

6786 

3.0 

9.5 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats,  milo 
maize,  millet,  sunflower  seed 

Carrolls  Chick  Feed  With  Grit 

8408 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  oat 
meal,  wild  buckwheat  (with  not  to 
exceed  y2%  miscellaneous  wild  seeds 
occurring  in  above  seeds  and  grains) 
charcoal,  marble  grit 

Carrolls  Scratch  Feed  With  Grit 

8400 

2.5 

8.5 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  lime- 
stone grit 

Chamberlain  Company,  F.  B.,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Acorn  Hen  Feed _ 

4849 

3.5 

10.0 

6.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley,  sun- 
flower seed,  whole  screenings  from 
wheat,  oats  and  barley 

Acorn  Chick  Feed 

4850 

3.5 

10.0 

6.0 

Wheat,  com,  kafir,  whole  screenings 
from  wheat,  oats  and  barley 

Premium  Chick  Feed 

5965 

3.5 

10.0 

6.0 

Wheat,  corn,  whole  wheat  screenings 

Premium  Hen  Feed 

5066 

3.5 

10.0 

6.0 

Wheat,  com,  barley,  oats,  sunflower 
seed,  whole  screenings  from  wheat, 
oats  and  barley 

60  Succeeded  by  Thomas  Milling  Co. 


128 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Chamberlain  Company,  F.  B.,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Chamberlain’s  Perfect  Chick  Feed 

8255 

2.5 

10.0 

6.0 

Wheat,  kafir,  oat  meal,  millet,  milo, 
field  seeds  from  wheat  screenings, 
meat,  bone,  charcoal,  limestone  grit 

Chamberlain’s  Perfect  Hen  Feed 

8526 

3.5 

11.0 

4.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  rolled 
oats,  buckwheat  seed,  sunflower 
seed,  meat,  bone,  charcoal 

Chamberlain’s  Perfect  Mash  Egg  Feed 

Chapman-Doake  Company,  The,  Decatur,  111. 

8257 

3.5 

11.0 

7.0 

Com,  rolled  oats,  wheat  bran,  corn 
meal,  alfalfa  meal,  cottonseed  meal, 
linseed  meal,  meat,  bone,  charcoal, 
salt 

Laymore  Scratch  Feed 

8370 

2.0 

10.0 

10.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  oats,  rye, 
sunflower  seed 

Diamond  “F”  Scratch  Feed 

8431 

3.0 

10.0 

12.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  oats,  sun- 
flower seed 

Laymore  Fine  Chick 

Chicago  Heights  Oil  Mfg.  Company, 

8660 

2.0 

10.0 

9.0 

Wheat,  corn,  millet  seed,  whole  field 
seeds  from  wheat  screenings,  oyster 
shell 

Chicago,  111. 

“Prize”  Scratch  Feed  With  Grit 

6335 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  barley,  buckwheat,  sun- 
flower seed,  charcoal,  limestone  grit 

“Prize”  Scratch  Feed,  No  Grit ' 

6838 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  barley,  buckwheat,  sun- 
flower seeds,  charcoal 

Cincinnati  Grain  & Hay  Company, 

Cincinnati,  Ohio 

“No-Better”  Poultry  Feed 

8505 

2.5 

10.0 

4.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  milo, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 

Citizens  Hay  & Grain  Company, 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Citizen’s  Scratch  Feed 

8865 

5.0 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  sunflower 
seed 

City  Feed  Store,  Plymouth,  Ind. 

Plymouth  Scratch  Feed 

7163 

2.5 

8.7 

7.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  millet  seed, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  oyster 
shells,  charcoal 

Plymouth  Chick  Feed  _ 

7541 

2.5 

9.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  hulled 
oats,  charcoal,  oyster  shell 

Plymouth  Egg  Mash  __  __ 

Clover  Leaf  Flour  Mills,  Kokomo,  Ind. 

7543 

4.0 

15.0 

11*0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings, 
ground  wheat  screenings,  hominy 
feed,  alfalfa  meal,  meat  scraps,  cot- 
tonseed meal,  charcoal,  salt,  oyster 
shell 

Clover  Leaf  Egg  Mash __ 

Corno  Mills  Company,  The,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

8321 

3.0 

18.0 

10.0 

Com,  oats,  wheat  bran,  wheat  mid- 
dlings, corn  gluten  feed,  alfalfa 
meal,  linseed  oil  meal,  meat  scraps, 
charcoal,  molasses 

Corno  Hen  Feed 

8971 

3.0 

10.0 

3.5 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  sunflower 
seed,  ground  wheat  screenings 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Company, 

Lafayette,  Ind. 

Thrift  Chick  Feed 

8689 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  steel  cut 
oats 

Thrift  Scratch  Feed 

8690 

3.0 

11.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 

Star  City  Scratch  Feed 

9395 

3.0 

10.5 

5.0 

Corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley,  buckwheat, 
sunflower  seed 

Star  City  Chick  Feed 

9396 

2.5 

9.5 

5.0 

Corn,  kafir,  millet,  steel  cut  oats 

Cyphers  Incubator  Company,  Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

Fattening  Mash 

4201 

3.0 

11.0 

5.0 

Kafir,  wheat  bran,  wheat  shorts,  red- 
dog  flour,  com  meal,  alfalfa  meal 

Complete  Chick  Food 

7626 

2.5 

9.5 

4.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo  maize,  mil- 
let, whole  wheat  screenings,  lime- 
stone grit 

Standard  Chick  Food 

7627 

2.5 

9.5 

4.0 

Wheat,  com,  kafir,  milo  maize,  mil- 
let, whole  wheat  screenings 

Complete  Developing  Food 

7628 

2.5 

9.5 

4.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo  maize,  whole 
wheat  screenings,  oyster  shell,  lime- 
stone grit 

129 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Cyphers  Incubator  Company,  Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

Standard  Developing  Food  

7629 

2.5 

9.5 

4.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo  maize, 
buckwheat,  whole  wheat  screenings 

Complete  Scratching  Food 

7680 

2.5 

9.5 

4.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo  maize,  whole 
wheat  screenings,  oyster  shell,  lime- 
stone grit 

Standard  Scratching  Food 

7631 

2.5 

9.5 

4.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo  maize,  oats, 
buckwheat,  whole  wheat  screenings 

Meat  Mash 

7632 

3.0 

15.0 

8.0 

Wheat  middlings,  corn  gluten  feed, 
corn  meal,  corn  bran,  alfalfa,  red- 
dog  flour,  meat,  bone,  oyster  shell 

Laying  Mash  ___  

7633 

3.0 

14.0 

8.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  corn 
meal,  kafir  meal,  alfalfa,  reddog 
flour,  blood  meal,  oyster  shell 

Fertile  Egg  Mash 

7684 

3.0 

9.5 

12.0 

Oats,  wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings, 
corn  meal,  alfalfa,  oyster  shell 

Pigeon  Food  _ 

7635 

3.0 

10.0 

4.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo  maize,  peas, 
hemp,  millet,  whole  wheat  screenings 

Growing  Mash  

7637 

3.0 

10.0 

10.0 

Oats,  com  meal,  wheat  middlings, 
alfalfa,  meat,  bone,  oyster  shell 

Delp  Grain  Company,  E.  E.,  Bourbon,  Ind. 

Bourbon  Scratch  Feed  

4965 

3.2 

10.0 

6.0 

Wheat,  com,  kafir,  barley,  millet, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  bone, 
charcoal,  limestone  grit 

Bourbon  Chick  Feed  

5006 

3.2 

10.0 

6.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  limestone 
grit 

Dickinson  Company,  The  Albert,  Chicago,  111. 

Crescent  Chick  Feed,  With  Grit 

2807 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  hulled  oats,  mil- 
let, limestone  grit 

Crescent  Chick  Feed,  No  Grit 

2806 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  hulled  oats,  millet 

King  Pigeon  Feed,  With  Grit 

2812 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  com,  kafir,  peas,  buckwheat, 
millet,  hemp,  grit  (limestone,  mica) 

King  Pigeon  Feed,  No  Grit 

2813 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  peas,  buckwheat, 
millet,  hemp 

Colonial  Developing  Feed,  With  Grit 

2814 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  hulled  oats, 
buckwheat,  millet,  limestone  grit 

Colonial  Developing  Feed,  No  Grit 

2815 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  hulled  oats,  buck- 
wheat, millet 

White  Cross  Chick  Feed,  No  Grit 

3051 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet 

Queen  Poultry  Mash 

4232 

2.5 

11.0 

10.0 

Alfalfa  meal,  wheat  bran,  wheat  feed 
meal,  corn  bran,  corn  feed  meal, 
beef  scraps,  linseed  meal,  y2%  salt 

Pine  Tree  Chick  Feed  No  Grit  

4050 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet 

Pine  Tree  Chick  Feed— With  Grit 

4051 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  limestone 

Globe  Chick  Feed  With  Grit 

5615 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  hulled 
oats,  limestone  grit 

Globe  Chick  Feed,  No  Grit  _ 

5616 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  com,  kafir,  millet,  hulled  oats 

Globe  Developing  Feed  With  Grit  _ 

5647 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  hulled  oats,  buck- 
wheat, millet,  granite  grit 

Globe  Developing  Feed  No  Grit  __ 

5648 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  com,  kafir,  hulled  oats,  buck- 
wheat, millet 

Colonial  Chick  Feed,  With  Grit 

5777 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  limestone 

White  Cross  Chick  Feed  With  Grit  _ 

5925 

2.5 

9.0 

5.0 

grit 

Wheat,  com,  kafir,  millet,  limestone 

Globe  Scratch  Feed  With  Grit  . 

6385 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  linseed 
oil  cake,  limestone  grit 

Globe  Scratch  Feed  No  Grit  _ . 

6386 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  linseed 
oil  cake 

Crescent  Scratch  Feed  With  Grit  _ ..  __ 

6387 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  linseed 
oil  cake,  limestone  grit 

Crescent  Scratch  Feed  No  Grit  

6388 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  linseed 
oil  cake 

130 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Dickinson  Company,  The  Albert,  Chicago,  111. 
White  Cross  Scratch  Teed  No  Grit 

6890 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 

Pine  Tree  Scratch  Feed  No  Grit 

6392 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  lime- 
stone grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats,  wild 

Colonial  Scratch  Teed  With  Grit 

6398 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Rival  Scratch  Feed  With  Grit 

6638 

2.5 

9.5 

5.0 

Rival  Scratch  Teed  No  Grit 

6539 

2.5 

9.5 

5.0 

buckwheat  (with  not  to  exceed  1% 
miscellaneous  wild  seeds  occurring  in 
above  seeds  and  grains)  limestone 
grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley,  wild 
buckwheat  (with  not  to  exceed  1% 
miscellaneous  wild  seeds  occurring  in 
above  seeds  and  grains) 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet 

Colonial  Scratch  Feed  No  Grit 

6640 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Colonial  Chick  Feed  No  Grit 

0541 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

White  Cross  Scratch  Feed  With  Grit 

6968 

2.5 

9.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  lime- 
stone grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 

Pine  Tree  Scratch  Feed  With  Grit 

6969 

2.5 

9.0 

5.0 

Globe  Egg  Mash  

6999 

3.0 

15.0 

10.0 

buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  lime- 
stone grit 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  al- 

Globe Pigeon  Feed  No  Grit 

7088 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

falfa  meal,  corn  bran,  corn  feed 
meal,  linseed  oil  meal,  meat  scraps, 
Vz%  salt 

Wheat,  peas,  kafir,  millet,  buck- 

Dixie Mills  Company,  East  St.  Louis,  111. 

Dixie  Poultry  Mash  __  

7621 

3.0 

17.0 

9.0 

wheat,  hemp 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  alfalfa 

Polo  Hen  Feed 

8262 

3.0 

10.0 

5.0 

meal,  corn  meal,  linseed  meal,  gran- 
ulated meat,  1%  charcoal,  1%  salt 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  barley,  em- 
mer,  sunflower  seed,  whole  wheat 
screenings 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  barley,  em- 
mer,  sunflower  seed,  whole  wheat 
screenings,  limestone  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  barley, 

Polo  Hen  Feed  (With  Grit) 

8263 

2.0 

9.0 

5.0 

Dixie  Hen  Feed 

8633 

3.0 

10.0 

5.0 

Polo  Chick  Feed  (Grit) 

9221 

2.0 

9.0 

5.0 

oats,  emmer,  sunflower  seed 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  whole 

screenings  from  wheat  and  flax, 
limestone  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  whole 

screenings  from  wheat  and  flax 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  millet, 

whole  screenings  from  wheat  and 
flax 

Wheat,  corn,  oats,  barley,  timothy 

Dixie  Chick  Feed  

9222 

3.0 

10.0 

5.0 

Polo  Chick  Feed 

9242 

2.0 

9.0 

5.0 

Early  & Daniel  Company,  The,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 
Eadon  Chick  Feed 

4436 

2.5 

10.0 

11.0 

Tuxedo  Scratch 

4606 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

seed,  clover  seed,  whole  screenings 
from  timothy  and  clover  seeds 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley,  sun- 
flower seed 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley,  sun- 

Tuxedo Scratch  (With  Grit)  ___  

4607 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Ce-re-a-lia  Egg  Mash  

4867 

5.0 

20.0 

7.5 

flower  seed,  marble  grit 

Ground  wheat,  wheat  bran,  wheat 

Eadon  Scratch  Feed  (No  Grit) 

5862 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

middlings,  corn  meal,  ground  oat 
groats,  alfalfa  leaf  meal,  linseed 
meal,  beef  scraps 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley,  rye, 

Tuxedo  Chick  

5863 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  oat  groats 

Eadon  Chick  With  Grit 

! 9363 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oat  groats,  mil- 

let, limestone  grit 

Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Eberts  & Bro.,  North  Vernon,  Ind. 

Quality  Scratch  Feed 

3063 

2.5 

10.0 

14.0 

Wheat,  corn,  barley,  oats,  kafir, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 

D D Hen  Feed  

Edinger  & Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

8001 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  wild  buckwheat, 
millet  seed,  (with  not  to  exceed  *4% 
miscellaneous  wild  seeds  occurring  in 
above  seeds  and  grains)  charcoal, 
marble  grit 

Arrow  Egg  and  Growing  Mash 

6694 

4.0 

17.0 

9.0 

Oats,  wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings, 
corn  meal,  alfalfa  meal,  linseed 
meal,  meat  scraps,  bone  meal,  char- 
coal, 1%  salt 

Arrow  Chick  Feed  (With  Grit) 

6695 

2.7 

10.5 

4.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo  maize,  mil 
let,  whole  wheat  screenings,  lime- 
stone grit 

Arrow  Chick  Feed  (No  Grit) 

6696 

2.7 

10.5 

4.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo  maize,  mil- 
let, whole  wheat  screenings 

Arrow  Hen  Feed  (With  Grit) 

6697 

3.0 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo  maize,  bar- 
ley, clipped  oats,  sunflower  seed, 
limestone  grit 

Arrow  Hen  Feed  (No  Grit) 

6698 

3.0 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo  maize,  bar- 
ley, clipped  oats,  sunflower  seed 

Producer  Scratch  Feed 

7263 

3.0 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  milo 
maize,  oats,  buckwheat,  sunflower 
seed,  linseed  oil  cake 

Producer  Developing  Feed  

7264 

3.0 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  hulled  oats,  milo 
maize,  millet,  buckwheat 

Producer  Chick  Feed  

7265 

3.0 

10.0 

4.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  hulled  oats,  mil- 
let, milo  maize 

Emison  & Company,  J.  & S.,  (Baltic  Mills) 
Vincennes,  Ind. 

Blue  Diamond  Little  Chick  Feed 

5071 

2.5 

8.5 

6.0 

Wheat  containing  field  seeds,  corn, 
kafir,  barley,  millet,  carbonate  of 
lime  (limestone) 

Blue  Diamond  Poultry  Feed 

Enos,  M.  T.,  New  Albany,  Ind. 

6248 

2.5 

8.5 

6.0 

Wheat  containing  field  seeds,  corn, 
kafir,  barley,  oats,  rye,  sunflower 
seed,  corn  germ,  carbonate  of  lime 
(limestone) 

Enos’  Chick  Feed 

3650 

3.2 

9.5 

6.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo  maize,  mil- 
let, charcoal 

Eureka  Mills  Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Eureka  Chick  Feed 

5794 

3.0 

10.0 

4.7 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  whole 
wheat  screenings,  heneta  grit  (lime, 
sodium,  silica,  phosphorous  com- 
pounds) 

Eureka  Hen  Feed 

Everitt’s  0.  K.  Seed  Store,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

5795 

2.4 

10.0 

2.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  sunflower 
seed,  heneta  grit  (sodium,  lime,  sil- 
ica, phosphorous  compounds) 

0.  K.  Scratch  Feed  

Fairplay  Feed  Mills,  Linton,  Ind. 

Success  Scratch  Feed  (With  Grit  & Oyster 

8706 

2.7 

10.0 

6.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  buckwheat, 
whole  wheat  screenings,  non  ger- 
minating garden  seeds 

Shell)  

6454 

2.5 

‘ 9.5 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats,  sun- 
flower seed,  charcoal,  oyster  shell, 
mica  grit 

Success  Chick  Feed  With  Grit 

Fairplay  Scratch  Feed  With  Grit  & Oyster 

6720 

2.5 

9.5 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed, 
charcoal,  mica  grit 

Shell  

7753 

2.5 

9.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats,  sun- 
flower seed,  charcoal,  oyster  shell, 
mica  grit 

Fairplay  Scratch  Feed 

7826 

2.5 

9.5 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  barley, 
oats,  sunflower  seed,  charcoal 

Ferger  Grain  Company,  The,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 

Columbia  Scratch  Grains 

5356 

3.0 

10.0 

4.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  millet 
seed 

Columbia  Little  Chick  Feed  

7655 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn  grits,  kafir,  oat  groats, 
millet  seed 

132 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Fisher  Bros.,  Evansville,  Ind. 

Diamond  Scratch  Feed 

8928 

2.5 

9.0 

7.0 

Wheat,  corn,  oats,  sunflower  seed, 
whole  wheat  screenings,  charcoal 
Wheat,  corn,  oats,  sunflower  seed, 
whole  wheat  screenings,  charcoal, 
limestone  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  millet  seed 

Diamond  Scratch  Feed  With  Grit  

8029 

2.5 

9.0 

7.0 

Diamond  Chick  Feed 

9282 

2.5 

9.0 

7.0 

Diamond  Chicken  Chowder 

9348 

3.0 

17.0 

8.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  corn 

Gandy  & Company,  0.,  South  Whitley,  Ind. 
Chick  Feed  Standard  A.  Brand  

4747 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

feed  meal,  alfalfa  meal,  linseed 
meal,  meat  scraps,  1%  charcoal 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  millet 

Standard  A.  Brand  Poultry  Feed  ..  

4748 

2.5 

9.5 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats,  mil- 
let, buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 

Wheat,  com,  kafir,  oats,  milo,  sun- 
flower seed,  charcoal 

Corn,  oats,  kafir,  whole  wheat  screen- 

Gas City  Elevator  Company,  Gas  City,  Ind. 
Scratch  Feed  

8569 

2.5 

9.0 

5.0 

Gibson  Live  Stock  & Feed  Company, 

Princeton,  Ind. 

Pilgrim  Scratch  Grains 

9123 

2.5 

8.0 

7.0 

Gienger  & Company,  J.,  Jeffersonville,  Ind. 
Blue  Bell  Scratch  Feed 

6014 

2.5 

9.0 

6.0 

ings,  oyster  shells 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  sunflower 

Glen  Echo  Mills,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Indian  Scratch  Feed 

5638 

2.0 

8.0 

10.0 

seed 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  sunflower 

Golden  Grain  Milling  Company, 

East  St.  Louis,  111. 

Golden  Grain  Scratch  Feed 

7366 

3.0 

10.0 

6.0 

seed 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  milo 
maize,  sunflower  seed 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  milo 

Economy  Scratch  Feed 

7367 

3.0 

10.0 

6.0 

Golden  Grain  Chick  Feed  

7368 

3.0 

10.0 

5.0 

maize 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo  maize,  millet 

Gotto,  0.  W.,  Michigan  City,  Ind. 

“Peerless”  Scratch  Feed 

8609 

2.5 

10.0 

6.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley, 
buckwheat,  charcoal,  oyster  shells, 
mica  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  steel  cut 

Graft,  O.  V.,  Winchester,  Ind. 

Imperial  Chick  Feed 

7896 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Imperial  Scratch  Feed 

7867 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

oats 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  cane  seed, 

Grain  Belt  Mills  Company,  St.  Joseph,  Mo. 
“Gee-Bee”  Hen  Feed 

9187 

3.0 

10.0 

6.0 

buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley, 

“Gee-Bee”  Chick  Feed 

9188 

3.0 

10.0 

6.0 

milo,  sunf lower  seed 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  millet 

Habig  Bros.,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Habig  Brothers  Chick  Food 

2621 

5.0 

8.0 

4.0 

Wheat,  com,  kafir,  millet,  limestone 

Pigeon  Feed  

4112 

3.0 

10.5 

5.0 

grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  buckwheat,  peas, 
hemp  seed,  charcoal,  limestone  grit 
Corn,  kafir,  millet,  whole  wheat 

Yankee  Chick  Food  

5673 

3.0 

8.0 

6.0 

Hales  & Edwards  Company,  Chicago,  111. 
Morning  Glory  Scratch  Feed  (With  Grit, 

Shell  & Charcoal)  

7467 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

screenings,  limestone  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats,  wild 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  1%  char- 
coal, 4%  oyster  shell,  4%  quartz  grit 
Corn  feed  meal,  old  process  linseed 

Red  Comb  Chick  Mash  With  Buttermilk 

8738 

4.0 

16.0 

9.0 

Morning  Glory  Scratch  Feed  (With  Grit  & 
Shell)  

8939 

2.0 

9.0 

7.0 

oil  meal,  dried  buttermilk,  oat 
flour,  barley  flour,  wheat  mid- 
dlings, alfalfa  leaf  flour,  dextrose, 
not  over  1%  calcium  carbonate,  %% 
salt 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats,  wild 

buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  not  over 
4%  oyster  shell,  4%  limestone  grit 

133 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Hales  & Edwards  Company,  Chicago,  111. 

Red  Comb  Poultry  Peed  (No  Grit) 

Red  Comb  Mash  Peed  (With  Dried  Butter- 

8953 

2.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 

milk)  and  Shell 

9036 

4.0 

15.0 

10.0 

Oats,  dried  buttermilk,  linseed  oil 
meal,  corn  feed  meal,  meat  scrap, 
wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  al- 
falfa meal,  not  over  5%  oyster  shell 

Red  Comb  Poultry  Peed  (With  Grit  & Shell)- 

9103 

2.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  not  over 
3%  oyster  shell,  3%  calcium  carbon- 
ate 

Red  Comb  Coarse  Chick  Peed  (With  Grit) 

9104 

2.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  hulled 
oats,  not  over  6%  calcium  carbon- 
ate 

Red  Comb  Coarse  Chick  Feed  (No  Grit) 

9106 

2.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  hulled 
oats 

Red  Comb  Pine  Chick  Peed  (With  Grit) 

9106 

2.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  steel 
cut  oats,  not  over  6%  calcium  car- 
bonate 

Red  Comb  Pine  Chick  Peed  (No  Grit) 

Red  Comb  Crate  Pattener  (With  Dried  But- 

9107 

2.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  steel 
cut  oats 

termilk)  _ __ 

9108 

4.0 

15.0 

8.0 

Oat  flour,  barley  flour,  reddog  flour, 
wheat  middlings,  alfalfa  meal,  corn 
feed  meal,  dried  buttermilk 

Cackle  Poultry  Peed  (With  Grit  & Shell) 

9100 

2.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats,  sun- 
flower seed,  not  over  4%  oyster 
shell,  4%  calcium  carbonate 

Cackle  Poultry  Feed  (No  Grit) 

9110 

2.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats,  sun- 
flower seed 

Cackle  Fine  Chick  Peed  (With  Grit) 

9111 

2.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  not 
over  8%  calcium  carbonate 

Cackle  Fine  Chick  Peed  (No  Grit) 

9112 

2.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed 

Morning  Glory  Scratch  Peed  (No  Grit)  

9113 

2.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats,  wild 
buckwheat,  spnflower  seed 

Pound  Squab  Pigeon  Peed  (With  Grit) 

9114 

2.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  hemp,  peas, 
buckwheat,  millet,  not  over  6%  cal- 
cium carbonate 

Pound  Squab  Pigeon  Feed  (No  Grit)  

9115 

2.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  hemp,  peas, 
buckwheat,  millet 

Hanks  Company,  Howard  H.,  Chicago,  111. 

Golden  Egg  Mash  Feed 

5372 

4.0 

15.0 

8.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  al- 
falfa meal,  oat  meal,  corn  meal, 
ground  cake  from  flaxseed  and  field 
seeds,  (wheat,  wild  buckwheat,  pig- 
eon grass,  wild  mustard)  meat 
scraps,  charcoal,  oyster  shell,  mica 
grit 

Gold  Egg  Chick  Peed  (No  Grit)  _ _ _ 

5889 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  steel 
cut  oats,  charcoal 

Kukoo  Chick  Feed  (No  Grit) _ 

5061 

2.5 

9.5 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  char- 

Gold Egg  Pigeon  Peed,  With  Grit 

6165 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

coal 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  hemp  seed,  peas, 
millet  seed,  buckwheat,  charcoal, 
mica  grit 

Early  Bird  Scratch  Feed,  No  Grit,  No  Shell- 

6186 

2.5 

9.5 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats,  sun- 
flower seed,  charcoal 

Early  Bird  Scratch  Feed,  With  Grit  & Shell 

6311 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  char- 
coal, oyster  shell,  mica  grit 

Golden  Egg  Fine  Chick  Feed  With  Grit 

6684 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  steel 
cut  oats,  charcoal,  oyster  shells, 
mica  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  char- 
coal, oyster  shells,  mica  grit 

Kukoo  Fine  Chick  Peed  With  Grit 

6685 

2.5 

9.5 

5.0 

Kukoo  Coarse  Chick  Feed  With  Grit 

6754 

2.5 

9.5 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  char- 
coal, oyster  shell,  mica  grit 

Golden  Egg  Scratch  Feed  With  Grit  & Shell.. 

7036 

2.5 

9.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  milo  maize,  barley, 
oats,  buckwheat,  sunflower  seed, 
charcoal,  oyster  shell,  limestone  grit 

134 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1913  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Hanks  Company,  Howard  H.,  Chicago,  111. 

Kukoo  Scratch  Feed  With  Garit  & Shell 

7037 

2.5 

8.5 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  milo  maize,  barley,  sun- 
flower seed,  charcoal,  oyster  shells, 
limestone  grit 

Golden  Egg  Scratch  Feed  No  Grit  No  Shell 

7040 

2.5 

9.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  milo  maize,  barley, 
oats,  buckwheat,  sunflower  seed, 
charcoal 

Golden  Egg  Coarse  Chick  Feed  With  Grit 

7564 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  hulled 
oats,  charcoal,  oyster  shells,  mica 
grit 

Kukoo  Scratch  Feed  No  Grit  No  Shell 

7583 

2.5 

8.5 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  milo  maize,  barley,  sun- 
flower seed,  charcoal 

Hartman  & Sons,  Louis,  New  Albany,  Ind. 

Chicken  Feed  

Havens,  P.  W.,  Hartford  City,  Ind. 

2022 

2.5 

10.0 

7.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  sunflower  seed, 
whole  wheat  screenings,  mica,  feld- 
spar, quartz  grit 

Havens’  Best  of  All  Chicken  Feed 

5540 

2.2 

8.5 

6.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  milo 
maize,  buckwheat,  sunflower  seed, 
charcoal,  limestone  grit 

Start  Me  Eight _ 

Haynes  Milling  Company,  The,  Portland,  Ind. 

5541 

2.5 

9.0 

4.5 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  charcoal, 
oyster  shell 

“U.  B.  Developer” __ 

5083 

2.5 

9.5 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  whole  wheat 
screenings 

“Hens  Will  Lay” _ 

Heitschmidt,  A.  C.,  Michigan  City,  Ind. 

8061 

3.0 

17.5 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  corn 
gluten  meal,  corn  meal,  linseed  oil 
meal,  meat  scraps 

Heitschmidt’s  Screenings 

Henderson  & Company,  W.  D., 

2551 

2.5 

10.0 

6.0 

Wheat,  corn,  barley,  oats,  kafir, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  shells, 
mica  grit 

Fort  Wayne,  Ind. 

Atlas  Poultry  Mash  

H.  0.  Company,  The,  Buffalo,  N.  T. 

5333 

3.0 

14.0 

10.0 

Wheat  shorts,  corn  meal,  alfalfa 
meal,  linseed  oil  meal,  beef  scraps, 
charcoal,  salt 

The  H.  0.  Company’s  Steam  Cooked  Chick 

Feed  

6653 

3.0 

12.0 

9.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  peas,  cut 
oat  meal 

The  H-0  Co’s  Algrane  Scratching  Feed 

Holser  & Company,  B.  I.,  Walkerton,  Ind. 

6838 

3.5 

11.0 

9.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  hulled  oats, 
barley,  milo  maize,  peas,  buckwheat, 
sunflower  seed,  whole  wheat  screen- 
ings 

Ho  osier  Scratch  Feed  

5814 

2.5 

9.5 

6.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  rye,  buck- 
wheat, sunflower  seed,  linseed  cake, 
oyster  shells 

Hoosier  Chick  Feed  _ 

5815 

2.5 

9.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  com,  kafir,  millet  seed,  oyster 
shells 

Hoosier  Egg  Mash 

Humphreys  & Company,  J.  F., 

Bloomington,  111. 

5816 

3.0 

14.0 

10.0 

Oats,  wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings, 
alfalfa  meal,  wheat  feed  meal,  corn 
bran,  corn  feed  meal,  linseed  meal, 
meat  scraps 

Wish  Bone  Poultry  Feed,  Hen  Size 

5543 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  buck- 
wheat, sunflower  seed 

Wish  Bone  Chick  Feed  With  Grit 

6473 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  oat 
meal,  wild  buckwheat,  (with  not  to 
exceed  V2%  miscellaneous  wild  seeds 
occurring  in  above  seeds  and  grains) 
charcoal,  marble  grit 

Wish  Bone  Chick  Feed  Without  Grit 

Indiana  Elevator,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

6474 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  oat 
meal,  wild  buckwheat,  (with  not  to 
exceed  y2%  miscellaneous  wild  seeds 
occurring  in  above  seeds  and  grains) 
charcoal 

Hoosier  Scratch  Feed  _ 

Indiana  Milling  Company,  Terre  Haute,  Ind. 

8579 

2.0 

8.5 

6.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  oats,  buck- 
wheat, sunflower  seed,  whole  wheat 
screenings,  charcoal,  oyster  shell, 
limestone  grit 

3—7  Chick  Feed 

3133 

3.0 

7.0 

20.0 

Whole  oat  screenings,  whole  corn 
screenings 

Eggo  Chicken  Feed 

3965 

2.0 

10.0 

2.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley 

Everybodys  Poultry  Feed 

4768 

4.0 

10.0 

4.0 

1 Wheat,  corn,  oats  *| 

i35 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Indiana  Seed  Company,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 
Monument  Brand  Chick  Food 

2245 

3.0 

10.5 

4.5 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  flaxseed, 

Monument  Brand  Pigeon  Feed 

3041 

2.5 

10.5 

4.5 

charcoal,  whole  and  ground  screen- 
ings from  wheat,  corn,  oats  and 
barley 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  buckwheat,  mil- 

Monument Brand  Scratch  Food  

3421 

3.0 

10.5 

5.0 

let,  peas,  hemp  seed. 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley, 

Monument  Brand  Poultry  Mash 

5113 

3.0 

10.5 

9.0 

cane,  buckwheat,  sunflower  seed, 
linseed  oil  cake,  whole  screenings 
from  wheat,  corn,  oats  and  barley 
Wheat  bran,  alfalfa  meal,  linseed  oil 

Monument  Brand  Mixed  Feed 

5643 

2.0 

9.0 

6.0 

meal,  corn  bran,  siftings  from 
crushed  wheat,  corn  and  kafir,  beef 
scraps,  charcoal 

Millet  seed,  corn  bran,  siftings  from 

Indiana  Squab  Company,  The,  Terre  Haute,  Ind. 
“Hoosier  Pigeon  Feed” _ 

7407 

2.5 

10.0 

7.0 

cracked  wheat,  corn,  kafir  and  cane 
seed,  charcoal 

Corn,  kafir,  peas,  peanut  kernels 

International  Sugar  Feed  Company, 
Minneapolis,  Minn. 

International  Poultry  Feed  ('Chick  Size') 

5823 

3.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 

International  Poultry  Feed  (With  Grit) 

8090 

3.5 

10.0 

5.0 

milo  maize,  millet  seed 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  oats,  bar- 
ley, buckwheat,  sunflower  seed, 
quartz  and  limestone  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 

International  Poultry  Feed 

9090 

3.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Iroquois  Roller  Mills,  Rensselaer,  Ind. 

Iroquois  Hen  Feed 

5089 

2.5 

8.0 

11.0 

milo,  buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  buckwheat,  oys- 

Iroquois Chick  Starter  

5797 

2.8 

8.7 

5.0 

ter  shells 

Wheat,  corn,  millet,  charcoal,  mica 

J Street  Milling  Company,  Laporte,  Ind. 

Scratch  Feed  _ ..  

2735 

2.5 

9.0 

7.0 

grit 

Wheat,  corn,  oats,  barley 

Maple  City  Scratch  Feed  

9255 

2.5 

9.0 

7.0 

Corn,  oats,  barley,  whole  wheat 

Jordan,  Geo.  M.,  Vincennes,  Ind. 

G.  M.  J.  Red  Hen — “Scratch  Feed” 

8993 

2.5 

10.0 

6.0 

screenings 

Corn,  kafir,  oats,  milo,  sunflower 

G.  M.  J.  Chick  Feed  

9269 

2.5 

9.5 

13.0 

seed,  oyster  shells 

Screened  cracked  corn,  millet  seed, 

Kasch,  C.  C.,  Logansport,  Ind. 

“Kay”  Chick  Feed  . ___  ___ 

7594 

2.5 

9.0 

6.0 

oyster  shells 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  charcoal. 

Kiest  Milling  Company,  Knox,  Ind. 

Kiest  Milling  Co’s  Poultry  Feed 

5107 

2.5 

8.0 

7.0 

limestone  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley,  milo 
maize,  buckwheat,  sunflower  seed, 
charcoal 

Oats,  corn,  wheat  bran,  wheat  mid- 

Kiest’s Poultry  Mash  _ 

9072 

3.0 

15.0 

12.0 

Kingman  Grain  & Milling  Company, 

Kingman,  Ind. 

Busy  Bee  Chick  Feed 

5792 

2.0 

9.0 

5.0 

dlings,  ground  wheat  screenings,  al- 
falfa meal,  meat  scraps,  linseed  oil 
meal 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  charcoal, 

Kingsbury  Milling  Company,  Kingsbury,  Ind. 
Interstate  Producer  Feed 

5009 

2.9 

10.0 

12.0 

limestone  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  buckwheat,  mil- 

Interstate Chick  Feed 

5837 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

let,  shells,  mica  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  hulled 

Interstate  Scratch  Feed 

5838 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

oats,  oyster  shells,  limestone  grit 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  buck- 

Knecht Milling  Company,  Hartford  City,  Ind. 
Sunflower  Scratch  Feed  __  ... 

6143 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

wheat,  clipped  oats,  sunflower  seed, 
linseed  cake,  oyster  shell,  limestone 
grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats,  sun- 

ft.  

flower  seed,  charcoal,  oyster  shell 

136 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Knoke  & Company,  H.  C.,  Chicago,  111. 

Perfecto  Poultry  Food  _ 

Knollenberg  Milling  Company,  Quincy,  111. 

8455 

2.5 

9.5 

5.0 

Wheat,  com,  kafir,  oats,  barley, 
peas,  buckwheat,  sunflower  seed, 
whole  screenings  from  wheat  and 
barley,  limestone  grit 

National  High  Protein  Egg  Scratch 

4246 

3.5 

12.5 

3.5 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  buck- 
wheat, sunflower  seeds,  beef  scraps 

Kornfalfa  Feed  Milling  Company, 

Kansas  City,  Mo. 

Kluk  Scratch  Feed  

3725 

3.2 

10.0 

4.5 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo  maize, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 

Kluk  Chick  Feed 

3726 

3.5 

9.5 

4.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo  maize,  millet 
seed 

Krause  Milling  Company,  Chas.  A., 

Milwaukee,  Wis. 

Blue  Top  Fine  Chick  Feed  (No  Grit) 

6560 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  com,  kafir,  millet  seed 

Blue  Top  Fine  Chick  Feed  (With  Grit) 

6534 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  char- 
coal, mica  grit 

Blue  Top  Scratch  Feed  (With  Grit) 

7327 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  lime- 
stone grit 

Blue  Top  Scratch  Feed  (No  GritV 

7328 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 

Blue  Top  Chick  Feed,  With  Grit _ 

7752 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  car- 
bonate of  lime  (crysco  grit) 

Krause  Mash  

8058 

3.5 

18.0 

7.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  malzo 
(corn)  reddog  flour,  corn  feed  meal, 
corn  germ  oil  meal,  hominy  feed, 
alfalfa  meal,  meat  scraps 

Cream  City  Scratch  Feed,  With  Grit 

8828. 

2.5 

8.5 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  barley, 
oats,  buckwheat,  sunflower  seed, 
carbonate  of  lime  (crysco  grit) 

Cream  City  Scratch  Feed,  No  Grit 

8820 

2.5 

8.5 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  barley, 
oats,  buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 

Conservation  Scratch  No  Grit 

8958 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Corn,  kafir,  milo,  barley,  oats,  buck- 
wheat, sunflower  seed 

Krause  Chick  Feed  With  Grit 

0006 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  carbonate 
of  lime  (crysco  grit) 

Krause  Chick  Feed  No  Grit 

0181 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet 

Conservation  Chick  With  Grit 

9347 

2.5 

9.0 

5.0 

Corn,  kafir,  milo,  millet,  carbonate 
of  lime  (limestone) 

Conservation  Chick  No  Grit 

0350 

2.5 

9.0 

5.0 

Corn,  kafir,  milo,  millet 

Conservation  Developing  With  Grit  

9860 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Corn,  kafir,  milo,  buckwheat,  millet, 
carbonate  of  lime  (limestone) 

Conservation  Developing  No  Grit 

9861 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Cora,  kafir,  milo,  buckwheat,  millet 

Conservation  Scratch  With  Grit 

Kuhn  & Son,  John  H.,  Michigan  City,  Ind. 

9862 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Corn,  kafir,  milo,  barley,  oats,  buck- 
wheat, sunflower  seed,  carbonate  of 
lime  (limestone) 

Heneatta  Scratch  Feed,  No  Grit 

7798 

2.2 

9.0 

8.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley,  rye 

Kuhn’s  Scratch  Feed 

LaPorte  Milling  Company,  LaPorte,  Ind. 

9052 

2.5 

9.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats,  rye, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  lime- 
stone grit 

U-Need-Me  Chick  Feed 

4305 

3.0 

9.0 

8.0 

Wheat,  corn,  oats,  whole  wheat 
screenings 

Linkhart  & Son,  J.  W.,  North  Vernon,  Ind. 

Linkhart’s  Chick  Feed 

7616 

2.0 

9.5 

8.0 

Salvage  wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet, 
charcoal 

Linton  Mill  Company,  Linton,  Ind. 

Success  Scratch  Feed _ 

5843 

2.5 

10.0 

4.5 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  wild  buckwheat 

Success  Scratch  Feed  With  Grit 

5844 

2.5 

10.0 

4.5 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  wild  buckwheat, 
marble  grit 

Success  Little  Chick  Feed 

5846 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  pigeon  grass,  mil- 
let, marble  grit 

Loogootee  Milling  Company,  Loogootee,  Ind. 

Mixed  Chicken  Feed 

3824 

2.5 

10.0 

8.0 

Wheat,  corn,  oats 

L.  M.  C.  Chick  Feed 

8567 

4.0 

10.0 

10.0 

Wheat,  corn,  peas,  oyster  shell,  mica 
grit 

i37 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


LABEL 


Official  No. 

Guaranteed  1 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

2523 

2.5 

10.0 

4.5 

2524 

2.5 

10.0 

4.5 

6237 

2.5 

10.0 

4.0 

3888 

2.0 

10.0 

6.0 

3512 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

4128 

2.5 

11.0 

11.0 

8038 

2.0 

9.0 

7.5 

3501 

3.5 

15.0 

8.0 

3548 

3.0 

10.0 

4.0 

5274 

3.5 

12.0 

10.0 

5724 

2.5 

10.0 

6.0 

7462 

3.0 

17.0 

6.0 

7646 

3.0 

17.0 

5.0 

8006 

4.0 

17.0 

6.0 

5125 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

5805 

2.5 

10.0 

6.0 

1732 

2.5 

10.0 

2.0 

1733 

2.5 

10.0 

2.0 

4956 

3.0 

12.5 

14.0 

i 2363 

2.9 

10.0 

2.5 

1 2364 

3.1 

9.4 

2.5 

j 3091 

3.0 

8.0 

13.8 

3540 

2.7 

10.0 

4.8 

4499 

3.5 

15.0 

7.0 

4983 

3.0 

12.0 

8.5 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Loughry  Bros.  Milling  & Grain  Company, 
Monticello,  Ind. 

Loughry’s  Star  Poultry  Feed 


Loughry’s  Star  Chick  Feed 

Louisville  Cereal  Mill  Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 
Nonesuch  Poultry  Feed  


Maginot  Bros.,  Hammond,  Ind. 
Magnet  Poultry  Feed 


“Magnet”  Chick  Feed 
“Magnet”  Poultry  Mash 


Majot  & Morgan,  Michigan  City,  R.  R.  1,  Ind. 
Scratch  Feed 


Martin,  John  D.,  Lafayette,  Ind. 
Duree  Poultry  Mash 


Duree  Chick  Feed 


Duree  Mash  Feed 5074 


Duree  Chick  Milk  Mash 7646 


Duree  Milk  Egg  Mash  _ 8006 


Maumee  Valley  Mills,  New  Haven,  Ind. 
Atlas  Chicken  Feed 


Vim  and  Vigor  Chicken  Feed 

Mayflower  Mills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind. 


Merchants  Hay  & Grain  Company, 
Indianapolis,  Ind. 


Midland  Poultry  Food  Company, 
I Kansas  City,  Mo. 

Midland  Poultry  Food  Chick  Fc 
Midland  Poultry  Food  Scratch 
Midland  Scratch  Feed 


Developer 


No.  2 Growing  Chick  Food 


Wheat,  com,  oats,  buckwheat,  kafir, 
sunflower  seed,  whole  wheat  screen- 
ings, shells,  charcoal,  quartz  grit 
Wheat,  corn,  millet,  kafir,  oats, 
whole  wheat  screenings,  charcoal, 
quartz  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley,  sun- 
flower seed 

Wheat,  corn,  oats,  kafir,  barley, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  linseed 
cake,  shells,  charcoal,  limestone  grit 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  hulled  oats,  mil- 
let, limestone  grit 

Corn,  wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings, 
alfalfa  meal,  wheat  flour,  corn  feed 
meal,  meat,  blood,  bone 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 
buckwheat,  oyster  shells,  mica  and 
quartz  grit 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  oats,  corn 
meal,  gluten  meal,  alfalfa  meal,  oil 
meal,  beef  scraps,  blood  flour 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  steel  cut  oats, 
millet,  hemp,  bone 

Oats,  wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings, 
corn  meal,  alfalfa  meal,  linseed  oil 
meal,  beef  scraps,  blood  meal 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  barley, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 
Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  corn 
feed  meal,  corn  gluten  feed,  beef 
meal,  blood  meal,  linseed  oil  meal 
Gentian,  wheat  bran,  wheat  mid- 
dlings, corn  feed  meal,  milk  albu- 
men, beef  meal,  blood  meal,  linseed 
oil  meal 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  corn 
germ  meal,  alfalfa  meal,  meat  meal, 
linseed  oil  meal,  blood  meal,  milk 
albumen,  %%  salt 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats,  mil- 
let 

Corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley,  rye,  buck- 
wheat, whole  wheat  screenings,  oys- 
ter shell,  limestone  grit 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  sunflower 
seeds,  milo  maize,  flaxseed,  millet, 
limestone  grit,  charcoal 
Wheat,  corn,  barley,  kafir,  oats,  milo 
maize,  flaxseed,  buckwheat,  sun- 
flower seeds,  limestone,  charcoal 

Mustard,  wheat  bran,  wheat  mid- 
dlings, alfalfa  meal,  corn  feed  meal, 
beef  scraps,  linseed  oil  meal,  charred 
bone 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  sunflower  seed 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  cane,  sand 
grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  sand  grit 
Corn,  wheat  bran,  wheat  shorts, 
dried  blood,  charcoal,  sand  grit 
Corn,  wheat  bran,  wheat  shorts, 
dried  blood,  charcoal,  quartz  grit 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


LABEL 


Midland  Poultry  Pood  Company, 

Kansas  C'ity,  Mo. 

4084 

4.0 

9.0 

7.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  shorts,  wheat 

flour,  corn  meal,  dried  blood,  char- 

Milan Mill  & Elevator,  Milan,  Ind. 

9845 

2.5 

9.5 

5.0 

coal,  quartz  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  buckwheat, 
sunflower  seed 

Moutoux,  P.  & H.,  Evansville,  Ind. 

9239 

2.5 

9.0 

9.0 

Wheat,  corn,  oats,  whole  wheat 

92-83 

2.5 

9.0 

9.0 

screenings,  sunflower  seed 

Wheat,  corn,  millet,  whole  wheat 

screenings,  charcoal 

McCormick  & Son,  Chas.  W.,  Logansport,  Ind. 
Balanced  Poultry  Peed 

McCoy  Bros.,  Liberty,  Ind. 

6045 

3857 

3.0 

3.0 

9.0 

10.0 

6.0 

8.0 

Wheat,  com,  kafir,  oats,  milo  maize, 
millet,  buckwheat,  sunflower  seed, 
linseed  oil  cake,  charcoal,  oyster 
shells,  limestone  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  oats,  barley,  sunflower 

3358 

5.0 

18.0 

7.0 

seed 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  corn 

3663 

5.0 

16.0 

8.0 

meal,  old  process  linseed  oil  meal, 
beef  scraps,  charcoal 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  meal, 

Reliance  Chick  Scratch  Peed 

3664 

3.0 

9.0 

5.0 

alfalfa  meal,  beef  scraps,  linseed  oil 
cake  meal,  (old  process) 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  pin  head 
oats,  charcoal 

McCoy  & Company,  U.  G.,  Vincennes,  Ind. 

Star  Scratch  Chicken  Peed 

7944 

2.5 

7.5 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  sunflower 
seed,  charcoal,  oyster  shell 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  sunflower 
seed,  charcoal 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  sunflower 
seed,  charcoal,  oyster  shell 

Star  Scratch  thicken  Peed  Without  Grit. 

8002 

3.0 

9.0 

6.0 

Our  Choice  Scratch  Chieken  Peed 

8063 

3.0 

8.0 

5.0 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Eureka  Hen  Peed  

5871 

2.5 

10.0 

6.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  charcoal 
Wheat  bran,  corn  gluten  meal,  al- 

Eureka Poultry  Mash 

6572 

3.0 

12.0 

11.0 

Eureka  Chick  Peed 

6611 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

falfa  meal,  wheat  feed  meal,  corn 
feed  meal,  linseed  meal,  meat 
scraps,  %%  salt 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  car- 
bonate of  lime  (limestone) 

McCullough*,  J.  Charles,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 

Acme  Chick  

2926 

3.0 

10.0 

11.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  buckwheat,  millet 
seed,  cane  seed,  whole  screenings 
(principally  from  millet  seed,  cane 
seed  and  clover  seed)  limestone  grit 

McCullough  Seed  Company,  The  J.  Chas., 
Cincinnati,  Ohio 

J.  C.  McC'.  Poultry  Peed 

5674 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats,  mil- 
let, cane,  buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 

McMahan  Bros.,  Valparaiso,  Ind. 

Perfection  Poultry  ivr^sh  _ 

4902 

2.5 

10.0 

10.0 

Corn,  oats,  wheat  bran,  wheat  mid- 

dlings, alfalfa  meal,  corn  gluten 
feed,  lmseed  meal,  beef  scraps,  bone 

National  Oats  Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Nitro  Hen  Peed  

. 8963 

3.0 

10.0 

3.5 

meal  . , 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley, 

Nutro  Chick  Feed  - 

. 8972 

3.0 

10.0 

3.5 

ground  wheat  screenings 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed, 

Diamond  “O”  H°n  Peed  With  Grit, 

. 9020 

3.0 

10.0 

3.5 

ground  wheat  screenings 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley, 
ground  wheat  screenings,  marble 

National  Produce  Company,  Evansville,  Ind. 
National  Scratch  Peed 

. 8060 

2.5 

9.0 

6.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  milo, 
oats,  buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 

Neumann  Company,  John  G.,  Evansville,  Ind. 
No  Waste  Perajeh  PeCd  

7087 

2.5 

9.0 

6.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  milo 
maize,  oats,  buckwheat,  sunflower 

seed 

Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


m C A 
.2  8® 
o * 


0} 

S ^ 

.Z 

o 

O P 
ft  U 


and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


139 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


LABEL 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


M fl«H 
.2  8® 
o £ s 

>-7  2 S-I 

S ft  u 


I .S 

tn  +f  J* 
« ft  a 
® 

o Vila 
a o 


+5  :2 

G «H 


|E 

ft  u 


Odon  Milling  Company,  Odon,  Ind. 

Champion  Chick  Feed  _ _ 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Ohio  Valley  Seed  Company,  Evansville,  Ind. 
Bell  Brand  Chick  Feed  _ 

. 3589 

3.5 

10.5 

7.0 

Golden  Egg  Dry  Mash 

J 5345 

3.5 

14.0 

6.0 

Bell  Brand  Poultry  Feed  _ _ 

- 6306 

3.0 

10.0 

6.0 

Full-Nest  Scratch  Feed  _ 

6594 

2.0 

3.0 

9.0 

20.0 

7.0 

7.0 

Ossian  Roller  Mills,  Ossian,  Ind. 

Dry  Mash  Chick  Feed  _ _ 

7554 

Egg  Producer  

8714 

9094 

3.0 

3.5 

i a n 

1 A A 

Egg  Mash 

±*x  . U 

i ct  a 

XU  .U 

1 A A 

Oswego  Milling  Company,  Oswego,  N.  T. 

Pontiac  Scratch  Feed  _ 

8601 

9289 

1.5 

4.0 

XO.  U 

1A  A 

XU.O 

PC  A 

Ovie’s  Hatchery  Company,  Marion,  Ind. 

Ovie’s  Baby  Chick  Starter  ___ 

XU  .U 

18.0 

O.U 

8.0 

Pancost  Milling  Company,  Elkhart,  Ind 

Chick  Food 

6888 

7 PC 

Q PC 

Park  & Pollard  Company  of  Illinois, 

Chicago,  111. 

Baby  Buster  Chick  Feed  _ 

8423 

8424 

8425 

8426 

9397 

9398 

Ca  . U 

2.0 

1 PC 

/ .0 

11  A 

0.0 

c A 

Red  Ribbon  Scratch  Feed 

XX  .U 

irt  a 

O.U 

r A 

Red  Ribbon  Chick  Feed  . 

Intermediate  Chick  Feed 

1 . 0 

2.0 

1 PC 

XU  .U 

10.0 

1 A A 

o.U 

5.0  ' 

PC  A 

Peirce  Company,  0.  W.,  Lafayette,  Ind 

Flag  Brand  Chick  Feed 

J-  . O 

9 PC 

XU.  1/ 

Q PC 

O.U 

PC  A t 

Flag  Brand  Scratch  Feed  . 

& . o 

9 A 

y . o 

1 A PC 

O.U  f 

PC  A 4 

Peru  Milling  Company,  Peru,  Ind 

Peru  Poultry  Feed  _ 

'T(MR 

O .V 

9 PC 

XU . D 

1 A A 

O.U  < 

Peters  Mill  Company,  M.  C.,  Omaha,  Neb. 

Peters’  Red  Feather  Poultry  Scratch  Feed 

1 tJ.U 

9168 

£ .u 

3.0 

XU.  U 

10.0 

5.0  1 

6.0  1 

Peters’  Red  Feather  Poultry  Mash  Feed 

9169 

3.0 

14.0 

11.0  ( 

Peters’  Red  Feather  Poultry  Chick  Feed... 
Peters  Re-Peter  Poultry  Scratch  Feed 

9170 

9171 

3.0 

3.0 

2.5 

10.0 

10.0 

10.0 

5.0  1 

7.0  ( 

rr  n x 

Prairie  State  Milling  Company,  Chicago,  111. 
Prairie  State  Scratch  Feed  No  Grit 

6762 

ff 

O.U  V 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  oat 
meal,  wild  buckwheat,  (with  not  to 
exceed.  y2%  miscellaneous  wild  seed 
occurring  in  above  seeds  and  grains) 
charcoal 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  hulled 
oats,  flaxseed,  charcoal 
Wheat  bran,  shorts,  corn  meal,  lin- 
seed meal,  alfalfa  meal,  corn  gluten 
feed,  meat  scraps,  charcoal,  heneta 
grit  (sodium,  lime,  silica,  phos- 
phorus compounds) 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley,  sun- 
flower seeds,  charcoal 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley, 
whole  wheat  screenings,  oyster 
shells,  mica  grit 

Wheat  bran  and  ground  wheat 
screenings,  wheat  middlings  and 
ground  wheat  screenings,  corn  meal, 
corn  gluten  meal,  beef  scraps,  char- 
coal 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  oats,  corn  gluten 
feed,  charcoal,  salt 
Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings, 
ground  wheat  screenings,  ground 
oats,  corn  gluten  feed,  old  process 
linseed  oil  meal,  cottonseed  meal, 
corn  bran,  salt,  charcoal 
Wheat,  com,  kafir,  barley,  milo, 
oats,  buckwheat 

Millet  seed,  rape  seed,  wheat  bran, 
wheat  middlings,  corn  meal,  corn 
germ  meal,  oat  meal,  meat  scraps, 
bone  meal,  Epsom  salt,  charcoal 
Corn,  oats,  buckwheat,  whole  wheat 
screenings 


Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  oats,  millet 
seed,  shredded  fish 
Vheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 
milo,  buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 


buckwheat 


sunflower  seed 


Vheat,  com,  kafir,  oats,  cane  seed, 
sunflower  seed,  oyster  shells 


corn,  kafir,  barley, 
buckwheat,  sunflower 


milo, 


middlings,  corn  germ  meal,  linseed 
oil  meal,  alfalfa  flour,  buttermilk 


sunflower 

, corn,  kafir,  barley,  buck- 
wheat,  sunflower  seed,  charcoal 


140 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

JNot  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Prairie  State  Milling  Company,  Chicago,  111. 

6763 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  buck- 

wheat, sunflower  seed,  charcoal, 
oyster  shell,  limestone  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  buck- 

wheat, sunflower  seed,  charcoal 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  buck- 

wheat, sunflower  seed,  charcoal, 
oyster  shell,  limestone  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  hulled 

oats,  charcoal,  limestone  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  steel  cut 
oats,  charcoal 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  steel  cut 

6764 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

6766 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Prairie  State  Chick  Peed,  Coarse,  With  Grit— 

6766 

6767 

2.5 

2.5 

10.0 

10.0 

5.0 

5.0 

6768 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

6769 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

oats,  charcoal,  limestone  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  steel  cut 
oats,  charcoal 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  steel  cut 
oats,  charcoal,  limestone  grit 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  wheat 

6770 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

7255 

3.5 

17.0 

10.0 

Red  Crown  Scratch  Peed,  No  Grit 

7266 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

meal,  corn  feed  meal,  kafir  meal,  al- 
falfa meal,  linseed  oil  meal,  meat 
scraps,  charcoal,  oyster  shell 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats,  wild 

Red  Crown  Scratch  Feed,  W ith  Grit  - 

7267 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  charcoal 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats,  wild 

Prairie  State  Pigpon  Bppri  _ 

7744 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  oyster 
shells,  charcoal,  limestone  grit 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  buckwheat,  peas, 

Prater-Mottier  Company,  Terre  Haute,  Ind. 
Praters  Scratch  BpppI 

7682 

1.5 

6.0 

3.0 

hemp  seed,  millet  seed,  charcoal, 
limestone  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  sunflower 

Praters  A.  Scratch  Peed 

7612 

3.0 

8.0 

15.0 

seed,  limestone  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  sunflower 

Praters  Chick  PpprJ 

8400 

2.0 

7.0 

15.0 

Corn,  kafir,  whole  screenings  from 

Purina  Mills,  Branch,  Ralston  Purina 

Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Purina  Scratch  Pppd 

7827 

2.5 

10.0 

4.0 

wheat,  millet  and  clover  seed,  lime- 
stone grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  milo,  sun- 

Pni’inq. Gh i plr  Ppfid  

8004 

2.5 

10.0 

4.0 

flower  seed 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  milo 

Purina  ^hipkpn  T^atpr| a 

8585 

5.0 

9.0 

9.0 

Ground  corn,  ground  oats,  kafir 
meal,  barley  meal,  ground  sunflower 
seeds,  wheat  middlings,  corn  germ 
meal,  linseed  meal 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  steel  cut 
oats,  millet,  whole  wheat  screenings 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  hulled  oats,  milo 

Purity  Oats  Company,  Davenport,  Iowa 

Iowa  Chick  Bfipri 

6760 

3.5 

10.0 

5.0 

ppfnf.pl-i  Ppprl 

7121 

3.2 

10.0 

5.0 

Perfect  Chick  Peed 

Iowa  Chick  Peed,  With  Grit 

7122 

7464 

3.5 

3.0 

10.0 

10.0 

5.0 

5.0 

maize,  barley,  buckwheat,  sunflower 
seed,  whole  wheat  screenings 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo  maize,  steel 
cut  oats,  millet,  whole  wheat 
screenings 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo  maize,  steel 

Tom  Boy  Ohiclr  Pperi,  With  Grit, 

7545 

2.7 

10.0 

5.0 

cut  oats,  millet,  whole  wheat  screen- 
ings, limestone  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo  maize,  steel 
cut  oats,  millet,  whole  wheat  screen- 
ings, limestone  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo  maize,  steel 

Tom  Boy  ^hick  Pppd  (Nn  Grit) 

7546 

3.0 

10.0 

5.0 

Tom  Boy  Scratch  Bppr|  (With  Grit) 

7786 

2.7 

10.0 

5.0 

cut  oats,  millet,  whole  wheat  screen- 
ings 

Whej^t,  corn,  kafir,  milo  maize,  bar- 
ley, hulled  oats,  buckwheat,  sun- 
flower seed,  limestone  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo  maize,  bar- 

Tom Boy  Scratch  Pppd  (Nn  Grit) 

. 7787 

2.7 

10.0 

5.0 

ley,  hulled  oats,  buckwheat,  sun- 
flower seed 

Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


LABEL 


Purity  Oats  Company,  Davenport,  Iowa 
Iowa  Scratch  Peed  (With  Grit) 


Iowa  Scratch  Peed 


Tom  Boy  Poultry  Mash 


Quaker  Oats  Company,  The,  Chicago,  111. 
Eureka  Hen  Peed  (With  Grit) 

Eureka  Hen  Peed  (Without  Grit)  

Purity  Hen  Peed  (Without  Grit) 

Mothers  Peed  (Hen  Size) 

Mothers  Feed  (Chick  Size) 

Quaker  Poultry  Mash 

Quaker  Chick  Peed  With  Grit 


Quaker  Chick  Peed  Without  Grit 


Schumacher  Little  Chick  Feed  Without  Grit_. 


Schumacher  Little  Chick  Peed  With  Grit. 


Purity  Chick  Peed  With  Grit 


Purity  Chick  Peed  Without  Grit 


Blue  Ribbon  Chick  Peed  With  Grit 


Blue  Ribbon  Chick  Feed  Without  Grit 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

7788 

2.7 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo  maize,  bar- 
ley, hulled  oats,  buckwheat,  sun- 
flower seed,  limestone  grit 

7780 

2.7 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo  maize,  bar- 
ley, hulled  oats,  buckwheat,  sun- 
flower seed 

8146 

4.0 

15.0 

10.0 

Wheat,  barley,  kafir,  milo,  millet, 
buckwheat,  meat,  wheat  bran, 
wheat  middlings,  oat  meal,  oat 
germ  meal,  oat  middlings,  corn 
meal,  corn  gluten  feed,  hominy  feed, 
alfalfa  meal,  rock  phosphate,  salt, 
calcium  carbonate,  charcoal 

4875 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  buckwheat,  sun- 
flower seed,  oyster  shells,  marble 
grit 

4876 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  buckwheat,  sun- 
flower seeds 

5728 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  buck- 
wheat, sunflower  seeds 

5785 

3.5 

11.0 

2.5 

Wheat,  corn,  milo  maize,  buckwheat, 
sunflower  seeds,  oat  meal,  linseed 
oil  cake 

5786 

3.0 

10.5 

2.5 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  rolled 
oats,  oat  meal,  charcoal 

Wheat  bran,  alfalfa  meal,  hominy 
feed,  corn  gluten  feed,  oat  meal, 
meat  scraps,  ground  screenings 
from  corn,  oats,  wheat,  barley 

6861 

4.0 

17.5 

10.0 

6411 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  oat 
meal,  wild  buckwheat  (with  not  to 
exceed  y2%  miscellaneous  wild  seeds 
occurring  in  above  seeds  and  grains) 
charcoal,  marble  grit 

6412 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  oat 
meal,  wild  buckwheat,  (with  not  to 
exceed  y2%  miscellaneous  wild  seeds 
occurring  in  above  seeds  and 
grains),  charcoal 

6457 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  oat 
meal,  wild  buckwheat,  (with  not  to 
exceed  y2%  miscellaneous  wild  seeds 
occurring  in  above  seeds  and 
grains),  charcoal 

6458 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  oat 
meal,  wild  buckwheat,  (with  not  to 
exceed  y2%  miscellaneous  wild  seeds 
occurring  in  above  seeds  and 
grains),  charcoal,  marble  grit 

6459 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  oat 
meal,  wild  buckwheat,  (with  not  to 
exceed  y2%  miscellaneous  wild  seeds 
occurring  in  above  seeds  and 
grains),  marble  grit 

6460 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  com,  kafir,  millet  seed,  oat 
meal,  wild  buckwheat,  (with  not  to 
exceed  y2%  miscellaneous  wild  seeds 
occurring  in  above  seeds  and 
grains),  charcoal 

6461 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  oat 
meal,  wild  buckwheat,  (with  not  to 
exceed  y2%  miscellaneous  wild  seeds 
occurring  in  above  seeds  and 
grains),  charcoal,  marble  grit 

6462 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  oat 
meal,  wild  buckwheat,  (with  not  to 
exceed  y2%  miscellaneous  wild  seeds 
occurring  in  above  seeds  and 
grains),  charcoal 

142 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 


and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Quaker  Oats  Company,  The,  Chicago,  111. 
American  Little  Chick  Feed  With  Grit 

6463 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

American  Little  Chick  Feed  Without  Grit  ___ 

6464 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Prize  Winning  Chick  Feed  With  Grit  

6465 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Prize  Winning  Chick  Feed  Without  Grit 

6466 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Sterling  Chick  Feed  Without  Grit 

6468 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Early  Bird  Chick  Feed  With  Grit  — 

6497 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Early  Bird  Chick  Feed  Without  Grit 

6408 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Pansy  Chick  Feed  With  Grit  _ — 

6677 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Pansy  Chick  Feed  Without  Grit 

6661 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Big  Egg  Chick  Feed  With  Grit 

7356 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Big  Egg  Chick  Feed  Without  Grit 

7357 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Prize  Winning  Hen  Feed  Without  Grit 

7963 

2.5 

8.5 

5.0 

Prize  Winning  Hen  Feed  With  Grit 

7964 

2.5 

8.5 

5.0 

Ful-O-Pep  Dry  Mash 

8943 

4.0 

20.0 

10.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  oat 
meal,  wild  buckwheat,  (with  not  to 
exceed  y2°J0  miscellaneous  wild  seeds 
occurring  in  above  seeds  and 

grains),  charcoal,  marble  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  oat 
meal,  wild  buckwheat,  (with  not  to 
exceed  y2%  miscellaneous  wild  seeds 
occurring  in  above  seeds  and 

grains),  charcoal 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  oat 
meal,  wild  buckwheat,  (with  not  to 
exceed  y2%  miscellaneous  wild  seeds 
occurring  in  above  seeds  and 

grains),  charcoal,  marble  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  oat 
meal,  wild  buckwheat,  (with  not  to 
exceed  y2%  miscellaneous  wild  seeds 
occurring  in  above  seeds  and 

grains),  charcoal 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  oat 
meal,  wild  buckwheat,  (with  not  to 
exceed  y2%  miscellaneous  wild  seeds 
occurring  in  above  seeds  and 

grains),  charcoal 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  oat 
meal,  wild  buckwheat,  (with  not  to 
exceed  y2%  miscellaneous  wild  seeds 
occurring  in  above  seeds  and 

grains),  charcoal,  marble  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  oat 
meal,  wild  buckwheat,  (with  not  to 
exceed  y2%  miscellaneous  wild  seeds 
occurring  in  above  seeds  and 

grains),  charcoal 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  oat 
meal,  wild  buckwheat,  (with  not  to 
exceed  y2%  miscellaneous  wild  seeds 
occurring  in  above  seeds  and 

grains),  charcoal,  marble  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  oat 
meal,  wild  buckwheat,  (with  not  to 
exceed  y2%  miscellaneous  wild  seeds 
occurring  in  above  seeds  and 

grains),  charcoal 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo  maize,  millet 
seed,  oat  meal,  wild  buckwheat, 
(with  not  to  exceed  y2%  miscellane- 
ous wild  seeds  occurring  in  above 
seeds  and  grains),  charcoal,  6% 
marble  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo  maize,  millet 
seed,  oat  meal,  wild  buckwheat, 
(with  not  to  exceed  y2%  miscellane- 
ous wild  seeds  occurring  in  above 
seeds  and  grains),  charcoal 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seeds 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seeds,  lime- 
stone grit 

Meat  scraps,  oat  meal,  fish  scraps, 
alfalfa  meal,  wheat  bran,  (with 
ground  wheat  screenings  not  exceed- 
ing mill  run),  corn  feed  meal,  corn 
gluten  feed,  cottonseed  meal, 
ground  screenings  from  wheat,  corn, 
barley,  oats  and  flax,  bone  meal 


143 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Quaker  Oats  Company,  The,  Chicago,  111. 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  barley, 
buckwheat,  y2%  sunflower  seed 

Ful-O-Pep  Scratch  Feed  _ __  

8944 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Schumacher  Poultry  Mash 

8085 

4.0 

20.0 

10.0 

Cottonseed  meal,  alfalfa  meal,  oat 
meal,  wheat  bran,  (with  ground 
wheat  screenings  not  exceeding  mill 
run),  corn  feed  meal,  corn  gluten 
feed,  ground  screenings  from  wheat, 
oats,  barley  and  flaxseed,  meat 
scraps,  bone  meal,  fish  scraps 

Ful-O-Pep  Chick  Feed  ___  

9066 

3.5 

14.0 

3.0 

Wheat,  corn,  oat  meal,  fish  meal 
Wheat  bran,  oat  meal,  alfalfa  meal, 
ground  wheat  screenings,  bone 
meal,  meat  scraps 

Ful-O-Pep  Growing. Mash  

9067 

5.5 

15.5 

10.0 

Schumacher  Scratch  Grains  With  Grit 

9299 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  barley, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seeds,  linseed 
oil  cake,  6%  marble  grit 

Schumacher  Scratch  Grains  No  Grit  __  

9800 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  barley, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seeds,  linseed 
oil  cake 

Quaker  Scratch  Grains  With  Grit 

9301 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  barley, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seeds,  linseed 
oil  cake,  6%  marble  grit 

Quaker  Scratch  Grains  No  Grit  

9802 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  barley, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seeds,  linseed 
oil  cake 

Blue  Ribbon  Scratch  Grains  No  Grit 

9303 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  barley, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seeds,  linseed 
oil  cake 

American  Hen  Scratch  Grains  With  Grit 

9304 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  barley, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seeds,  linseed 
oil  cake,  0%  marble  grit 

Sterling  Scratch  Feed  No  Grit 

9305 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  barley, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seeds,  linseed 
oil  cake 

Pansy  Scratch  Grains  With  Grit 

9306 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  oats,  bar- 
ley, buckwheat,  sunflower  seeds,  lin- 
seed oil  cake,  6%  marble  grit 

Pansy  Scratch  Grains  No  Grit ___ 

9307 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  oats,  bar- 
ley, buckwheat,  sunflower  seeds,  lin- 
seed oil  cake 

Big  Egg  Scratch  Grains  With  Grit ___ 

9308 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  barley, 
oats,  sunflower  seeds,  whole  wheat 
screenings,  linseed  oil  cake,  6%  mar- 
ble grit 

Big  Egg  Scratch  Grains  No  Grit 

9300 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  oats,  bar- 
ley, sunflower  seeds,  whole  wheat 
screenings,  linseed  oil  cake 

Purity  Scratch  Grains  No  Grit 

9312 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  com  kafir,  milo,  barley, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  linseed 
oil  cake 

Early  Bird  Scratch  Grains  With  Grit 

9313 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  barley, 
oats,  sunflower  seeds,  whole  wheat 
screenings,  linseed  oil  cake,  6%  mar- 
ble grit 

Early  Bird  Scratch  Grains  No  Grit 

9314 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  barley, 
oats,  sunflower  seeds,  whole  wheat 
screenings,  linseed  oil  cake 

Prize  Winning  Scratch  Grains  Without  Grit__ 

Ralston  Purina  Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

9358 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  barley, 
buckwheat,  linseed  oil  cake,  sun- 
flower seeds 

Purina  Chicken  Chowder  Feed,  With  Charcoal 

. 7221 

4.0 

19.0 

9.0 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  corn 
meal,  alfalfa  meal,  linseed  meal, 
granulated  meat,  charcoal,  salt 

Purina  Pigeon  Feed 

8055 

2.5 

11.0 

4.0 

Wheat,  millet,  kafir,  milo,  Canada 
peas 

144 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


LABEL 


Rapier  Sugar  Feed  Company,  Owensboro,  Ky. 
Rapier’s  Blue  Hen  Baby  Chick  Feed 

Rapier’s  Economy  Scratch  Feed 

Rapier’s  Economy  Scratch  Feed,  5%  Grit 

Rapier’s  Blue  Hen  Baby  Chick  Feed,  Without 

Grit  

Rapier’s  Blue  Hen  Scratch  Feed 

Red  Mill,  The,  Fairland,  R.  R.  3,  Ind. 

Rasp  Chick  Feed 

Reed  & Company,  H.  G.,  Clymers,  Ind. 
Morningstar  Chick  Feed 

Morningstar  Scratch  Feed 

Morningstar  Developing  Food 

Reid-Murdock  & Company,  Chicago,  111. 

Farm  House  Scratch  Grains 

Farm  House  Chick  Feed  With  Grit 


Farm  House  Scratch  Grains  With  Grit__ 
Farm  House  Chick  Feed  Without  Grit__. 

Richards  & Son,  G.  W.,  New  Paris,  Ohio 
Keystone  Egg  Mash 

Rittenhouse,  E.  S.,  Liberty  Mills,  Ind. 
“All-In”  Chick  Starter  

Ritter-Hennings  Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 
Shur-Pleez  Baby  Chick  Feed 

White  Rock  Hen  Feed 

White  Rock  Brand  Baby  Chick  Feed 

Shur-Pleez  Egg  and  Growing  Mash 

Shur-Pleez  Scratch  Feed  

Bantam  Baby  Chick  Feed 

Good  Baby  Chick  Feed 

Sultan  Baby  Chick  Feed 

Tip  Top  Baby  Chick  Feed  (No  Grit) 


Official  No. 

Guaranteed  1 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

5578 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

6266 

2.0 

10.0 

5.0 

6680 

2.0 

10.0 

5.0 

7588 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

9270 

2.0 

10.0 

5.0 

4540 

2.3 

8.5 

12.0 

3059 

3.0 

9.5 

4.0 

3752 

2.8 

8.0 

5.5 

3753 

3.0 

8.0 

6.0 

7354 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

7355 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

7408 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

7400 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

5506 

6.0 

17.0 

9.0 

'5800 

2.0 

9.0 

5.0 

5014 

5.1 

12.8 

2.9 

6863 

3.2 

9.7 

2.5 

6993 

4.0 

9.0 

9.0 

8013 

4.5 

20.0 

9.0 

8220 

2.2 

9.0 

5.5 

8819 

3.1 

7.2 

5.5 

8540 

2.9 

9.0 

4.9 

9352 

5.0 

11.0 

7.5 

9353 

5.5 

12.0 

7.4 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  pigeon  grass, 
limestone  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  sunflower 
seed 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  sunflower 
seed,  limestone  grit 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  pigeon  grass 
Corn,  oats,  clipped  barley,  whole 
wheat  screenings 

Corn,  kafir,  millet,  whole  wheat 
screenings 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  lin- 
seed meal,  oyster  shell 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  buckwheat, 
sunflower  seed,  oyster  shell 
Wheat,  com,  kafir,  buckwheat,  char- 
coal, granite  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  buck- 
wheat, sunflower  seeds 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  oat 
meal,  wild  buckwheat,  (with  not  to 
exceed  %%  miscellaneous  wild  seeds 
occurring  in  above  seeds  and 
grains),  charcoal,  6%  marble  grit 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  buck- 
wheat, sunflower  seeds,  oyster 
shells,  marble  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  oat 
meal,  wild  buckwheat,  (with  not  to 
exceed  %%  miscellaneous  wild  seeds 
occurring  in  above  seeds  and 
grains),  charcoal 

Cayenne  pepper,  wheat  bran,  wheat 
middlings,  corn  meal,  alfalfa  meal, 
cottonseed  meal,  linseed  oil  meal, 
tankage,  charcoal 
Wheat,  com,  kafir,  millet,  hemp, 
charcoal,  bone 

Wheat,  corn,  pin  head  oats,  millet 
seed,  flaxseed,  whole  wheat  screen- 
ings 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo  maize,  sun- 
flower seed,  charcoal,  limestone  grit 
Wheat,  com,  steel  cut  oats,  flaxseed, 
millet  seed,  whole  recleaned  wheat 
screenings,  charcoal,  limestone  grit 
Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  com 
gluten  meal,  corn  feed  meal,  alfalfa 
meal,  meat  scraps,  bone  meal 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  sunflower 
seed 

Wheat,  corn,  pin  head  oats,  flaxseed, 
whole  wheat  screenings 
Wheat,  corn,  millet  seed,  steel  cut 
oats,  flaxseed,  whole  wheat  screen- 
ings, 5%  mica  and  quartz  grit 
Wheat,  corn,  millet  seed,  pin  head 
oats,  whole  screenings  from  wheat 
and  wild  seeds  (25%)  flaxseed,  5% 
mica  quartz  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  millet  seed,  pin  head 
oats,  whole  screenings  from  wheat 
and  wild  seeds  (25%),  flaxseed 


145 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Riverside  Milling  Company,  Clinton,  Iowa 
Sunflower  Scratchfeed 

5309 

2.5 

9.0 

3.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  buck- 

Sunflower Scratch  Feed  With  Grit  ___  

5801 

2.0 

8.5 

2.3 

wheat,  sunflower  seed 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  milo 

Robey  Mills,  Chicago,  111. 

Velvet  Fine  Chick  Feed  With  Grit 

9014 

2.5 

9.5 

5.0 

maize,  buckwheat,  sunflower  seed, 
limestone  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  millet,  oat  meal,  whole 

Velvet  Fine  Chick  Feed  No  Grit 

9015 

2.5 

9.5 

5.0 

weed  seeds  from  wheat  and  barley 
screenings,  limestone  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  millet,  oat  meal,  whole 
weed  seeds  from  wheat  and  barley 
screenings 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  steel  cut 
oats,  buckwheat,  whole  wheat 

screenings,  charcoal,  oyster  shells 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  buck- 
wheat, shell,  grit  (mica,  feldspar, 

quartz) 

Wheat,  com,  kafir,  millet,  buck- 

Rohm Bros.,  Rockville,  Ind. 

Best  Chick  Feed  ___  

7790 

3.0 

10.0 

6.0 

Roper  & Brown,  Hobart,  Ind. 

Hobart  Hen  Feed  

3476 

1.8 

9.0 

10.0 

Ross,  S.  F.,  Jonesville,  Ind. 

Eureka  Chick  Feed  

6637 

2.5 

8.0 

4.0 

Schaefer,  Karl  H.,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Schaefer’s  Special  Scratch  Feed 

7191 

2.0 

9.0 

6.0 

wheat,  oyster  shells 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats,  milo 

Schaefer’s  Extra  Scratch  Feed 

7506 

2.5 

10.0 

6.0 

maize 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 
whole  wheat  screenings,  peanut 
meats,  peanut  germs 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  steel  cut  oats, 
millet,  charcoal 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  corn 

Schaefer’s  Special  Chick  Feed 

7507 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Schaefer’s  Special  Poultry  Mash  __  

7660 

6.0 

12.0 

13.0 

Schaefer  Competitive  Scratch 

8373 

2.0 

8.0 

6.0 

meal,  alfalfa  meal,  linseed  meal, 
beef  scraps,  peanut  germ  meal,  kafir 
meal,  milo  maize  meal,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  charcoal,  salt 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley, 

Schaefer’s  Extra  Chick  Feed  __  

9381 

2.0 

9.0 

6.0 

whole  wheat  screenings 

Corn,  millet,  whole  millet  screenings, 

Shellabarger  Elevator  Company,  Decatur,  111. 
Big  S.  Scratch  Feed  __  

8214 

2.5 

9.0 

5.0 

whole  wheat  screenings  containing 
weed  seeds,  charcoal,  marble  grit 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley, 

Big  S.  Chick  Feed 

8215 

3.0 

10.0 

4.0 

milo,  buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  millet,  oat 

Shine  & Company,  John  H.,  New  Albany,  Ind. 
Star  Poultry  Feed 

4084 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

meal 

Wheat,  corn,  oats,  kafir,  sunflower 

Simmons  & Norris,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 

Fattenum  Poultry  Mash  ___  

8067 

5.0 

19.0 

6.0 

seed,  charcoal,  mica  grit 

Wheat  middlings,  wheat  flour,  hom- 

Excello Poultry  Mash __ 

8683 

4.0 

19.0 

10.0 

iny  meal,  corn  meal,  oat  flour,  al- 
falfa meal,  granulated  meat,  salt 
Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings,  oat 

Excello  Scratch  Feed  __  _ 

8684 

3.0 

10.0 

5.0 

flour,  hominy  meal,  com  feed  meal, 
linseed  meal,  fine  ground  alfalfa, 
granulated  meat,  salt,  charcoal 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley,  sun- 

S. and  N.  Scratch  Feed  . 

9336 

2.5 

10.0 

6.0 

flower  seed 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats,  sun- 
flower seed,  limestone  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oat  groats,  lime- 

S. and  N.  Chick  Feed  __  

9379 

2.5 

10.0 

6.0 

Excello  Chick  Feed  

9380 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

stone  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  oat  groats 

Slick  & Company,  L.  E.,  Bloomington,  111. 
Slick’s  Safety  First  Scratch  Feed  (No  Grit)__. 

9007 

2.5 

10.0 

6.0 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  oats,  bar- 

Slick’s Safety  First  Scratch  Feed  (With  Grit) 

9008 

2.5 

10.0 

6.0 

ley,  buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  oats,  bar- 

ley, buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  not 
over  1%  oyster  shell,  1%  limestone 
grit 

146 

Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


LABEL 


Small  & Company,  Inc.,  W.  H.,  Evansville,  Ind. 
“Poultry  Feed”  

Southern  Seed  Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Atlas  Chick  Feed 

Atlas  Scratch  Feed 


Indiana  Economy  Scratch  Feed 

Indiana  Economy  Chick  Feed 

South  Side  Cereal  Mills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind. 
Wayne  Scratch  Feed  

Wayne  Chick  Feed 

Sowash,  E.  K,  Middletown,  Ind. 

E.  K.  Chick  Starter  & Feed 

Sprague,  Warner  & Company,  Chicago,  111. 
Cero  Brand  Poultry  Feed 

Chico  Brand  Chick  Feed 


Spratt’s  Patent,  Ltd.,  Newark,  N.  J. 
Chicgrain  


Chick  Meal 

Poultry  Food 

Starr,  J.  R.,  Winamac,  Ind. 

Mixed  Poultry  Feed 

Starr  Mills,  South  Bend,  Ind. 

Scratch  Feed  

Scratch  Feed  With  Grit 

Steckley,  Geo.,  Kendallville,  Ind. 

Poultry  Mash  — 

Steinmesch  Feed  Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 
Steinmesch  Mixed  Feed  for  Poultry 

Stone  Quarry  Mills,  Spiceland,  Ind. 

Blue  Ribbon  Chick  & Hen  Feed 

Sugarine  Company,  The,  Peoria,  111. 

Sugarine  Chick  Feed  

Sugarine  Chick  Feed  With  5%  Grit 

Sugarine  Scratch  Feed 

Sugarine  Pigeon  Feed 

Sugarine  Poultry  Mash 


Universal  Scratch  Feed 

Universal  Scratch  Feed,  With  5%  Grit. 


Official  No. 

Guaranteed  I 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

4471 

2.5 

8.5 

5.0 

3775 

3.0 

10.0 

6.0 

3776 

3.0 

10.0 

6.0 

7994 

2.5 

9.5 

6.0 

7995 

2.5 

9.5 

6.0 

6251 

2.0 

9.0 

6.0 

6624 

2.0 

9.0 

6.0 

7492 

2.0 

9.0 

7.0 

8301 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

8302 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

6034 

3.0 

14.0 

5.0 

6035 

2.5 

20.0 

2.0 

6036 

3.5 

20.0 

2.0 

8602 

2.5 

9.5 

7.0 

6003 

2.0 

9.0 

5.0 

6933 

2.0 

8.0 

4.0 

3489 

4.5 

16.0 

9.0 

4025 

3.5 

10.0 

6.0 

7579 

2.0 

5.0 

7.0 

6662 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

6563 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

8288 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

8916 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

8917 

3.5 

18.0 

12.0 

8918 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

8919 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Corn,  kafir,  sunflower  seed,  salvage 
wheat,  oyster  shell 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  milo 

maize,  buckwheat 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 

milo  maize,  sunflower  seed,  buck- 
wheat 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  wholewheat 
screenings,  mussel  shells 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  millet, 

whole  wheat  screenings,  mussel 
shells 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  rye,  buck- 
wheat, sunflower  seed,  charcoal 

Wheat,  corn,  millet  seed,  charcoal 


Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  whole 
wheat  screenings,  charcoal,  oyster 
shells 

Wheat,  com,  kafir,  milo,  barley, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seeds 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  millet  seed, 
oat  meal,  wild  buckwheat,  (not  to 
exceed  V2%  miscellaneous  wild  seeds 
occurring  in  above  seeds  and  grains) 
charcoal 

Wheat,  kafir,  millet,  buckwheat, 
green  peas,  hemp,  Mexican  peas, 
popcorn,  canary,  rice,  meat,  char- 
coal, bone 
Wheat  flour,  meat 
Wheat  flour,  meat 


Wheat,  com,  oats,  buckwheat,  millet 


Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley,  rye, 
sunflower  seed,  charcoal 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo  maize, 
whole  wheat  screenings,  charcoal, 
limestone  grit 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  com  gluten 
feed,  com  feed  meal,  beef  scraps, 
linseed  meal 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats,  sun- 
flower seed,  flaxseed,  rape,  mustard 
seed 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  millet,  char- 
coal, oyster  shell 

Wheat,  com,  kafir,  millet 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  marble  grit 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  peas, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 
Wheat  bran,  corn  feed  meal,  com 
distillers  dried  grains,  alfalfa  meal, 
linseed  meal,  meat  scraps,  salt 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  marble 
grit 


147 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


LABEL 


Sugarine  Company,  The,  Peoria,  111. 
Ideal  Scratch  Peed 

Ideal  Scratch  Feed  With  5%  Grit  . 


Ideal  Chick  Peed,  With  5%  Grit 

Ideal  Chick  Peed  

Thomas  Milling  Company,  Marion,  Ind. 
Tip  Top  Chick  Peed 

Tip  Top  Scratch  Peed 

Union  Feed  & Poultry  Company, 
Lafayette,  Ind. 

Union  Poultry  Mash  


Union  Grain  & Peed  Company,  The, 
Anderson,  Ind. 

Union  Mash  : 


Union  Chick  Peed  With  Grit 

Union  Chick  Feed  Without  Grit 
Diamond  Scratch  Feed  With  Grit 


Diamond  Scratch  Feed  Without  Grit 

Walker  & Company,  P.  M.,  Loogootee,  Ind. 
Mixed  Chicken  Peed 

Weiss  Alfalfa  Stock  Food  Company,  The  Otto, 
Wichita,  Kansas 

Otto  Weiss  Hen  Peed J 


Otto  Weiss  Chick  Peed 

Wells,  Guy  M.,  Knox,  Ind. 

Wells  Mixed  Chicken  Peed 

Western  Grain  Products  Company, 
West  Hammond,  111. 

Calumet  Scratch  Feed— No  Grit 

Calumet  Scratch  Peed— With  Grit 


Hammond  Scratch  Peed— No  Grit 


Hammond  Scratch  Feed— With  Grit 

Whelan,  Omer  G.,  Richmond,  Ind. 
Scratching  Grains  With  Grit 


Scratching  Grains  Not  Grit 

Whelan’s  Chick  Peed 

Wilkinson,  A.  E.,  New  Castle,  Ind. 
Rapid  Developer 


Official  No. 

Guaranteed  b 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

9046 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

9047 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

9048 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

9096 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

8463 

2.5 

9.0 

4.0 

8454 

2.5 

9.0 

5.0 

7184 

3.5 

12.0 

10.0 

7065 

2.5 

11.0 

11.0 

8511 

2.0 

9.0 

10.0 

8512 

2.0 

9.0 

10.0 

8622 

2.0 

9.0 

6.0 

8623 

2.0 

9.0 

6.0 

7809 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

1784 

3.0 

13.8 

2.5 

. 1785 

3.0 

13.6 

2.8 

6308 

2.5 

9.0 

6.0 

. 7422 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

. 7423 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

. 7424 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

. 7426 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

. 8128 

2.9 

9.0 

5.0 

- 8120 

3.0 

9.5 

5.0 

. 8551 

2.0 

8.0 

5.0 

. 6800 

2.5 

9.0 

6.0 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats,  wild 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats,  wild 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  marble 
grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  pigeon 
grass,  marble  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  pigeon 
grass 

Wheat,  corn,  millet,  charcoal,  oyster 
shell 

Wheat,  corn,  barley,  oats,  buck- 
wheat, charcoal,  oyster  shell 


Oats,  wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings, 
corn  gluten  feed,  corn  meal,  alfalfa 
meal,  linseed  meal,  beef  scraps, 
blood  meal,  ground  wheat  screen- 
ings, charcoal 

Wheat  bran,  wheat  shorts,  corn 

meal,  alfalfa  meal,  meat  meal, 
charcoal 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed,  lime- 
stone grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet  seed 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley, 

milo,  sunflower  seed,  linseed  oil 
cake,  limestone  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  barley,, 

milo,  sunflower  seed,  linseed  oil  cake 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  whole 

wheat  screenings,  oyster  shells 


Corn,  kafir,  oats,  cane  seed,  wheat, 
millet,  beef  scraps,  bone,  limestone 
grit,  oyster  shells 

Kafir,  wheat,  oats,  millet,  cane  seed, 
beef  scraps,  bone,  limestone  grit 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  oyster 
shell 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats,  wild 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats,  wild 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  5%  lime- 
stone grit 

Wheat,  com,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 
buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  linseed 
oil  cake 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 

buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  linseed 
oil  cake,  5%  limestone  grit 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 

buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  char- 
coal, oyster  shells,  limestone  grit 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats, 

buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  charcoal 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  steel  cut 
oats,  whole  clover  seed,  screenings, 
charcoal,  limestone  grit 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  millet,  buck- 

wheat, cane  seed 


1 48 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  1 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

Wilkinson,  A.  E.,  New  Castle,  Ind. 

Wilkinson’s  La-U-Se  Poultry  Feed  With  Grit__ 

1 

7063 

2.5 

10.0 

5.0 

Wilkinson’s  “Hen-O-Lay  Mash”  ___  

9134 

2.0 

12.0 

5.0 

Wilson  & Son,  John  S.,  Evansville,  Ind. 
Wilson’s  Scratch  Feed  

8041 

3.0 

8.0 

6.0 

Wood,  Stubbs  & Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 
Shawnee  Brand  Scratch  Feed 

7331 

3.0 

10.0 

4.0 

Shawnee  Scratch  Feed  5%  Grit 

7500 

3.0 

10.5 

4.0 

Shawnee  Chick  Feed 

7549 

3.5 

10.0 

3.1 

Shawnee  Brand  Pigeon  Feed  __  

7652 

2.0 

10.0 

4.0 

Ziliak  & Schafer  Milling  Company,  Evansville 
Branch,  Evansville,  Ind. 

Acme  Scratch  Feed  

8694 

2.0 

9.0 

5.0 

Zionsville  Milling  Company,  Zionsville,  Ind. 
Scratch  Feed  _ 

7061 

2.0 

9.0 

10.0 

Zook  Bros.,  Logansport,  Ind. 

Faultless  Chick  Feed 

5900 

2.5 

8.0 

5.0 

Faultless  Hen  Food 

5910 

3.0 

9.0 

7.0 

CONDIMENTAL  STOCK  AND  POULTRY 
FEEDS 

American  Druggists  Syndicate, 

Long  Island  City,  N.  Y. 

Safb-T-Kros  Regulateur  _ 

1 

8416 

1.5 

8.5 

5.0 

Amos,  Carl,  Kokomo,  Ind.50 

The  Amos  Stock  Tonic 

7808 

6.2 

10.0 

40.3 

Amos  Worm  Powder  

8377 

2.0 

10.0 

5.0 

Amos  Stock  Tonic  Company,  The, 

Kokomo,  Ind. 

The  Amos  Horse,  Cattle  and  Sheep  Tonic 

8884 

4.0 

5.0 

40.0 

Amos  Hog  Tonic 

9024 

3.0 

5.0 

40.0 

Ashland  Stock  Food  Company,  Ashland,  Ohio 
Ashland  Poultry  Food  Digester 

4771 

2.2 

10.2 

5.5 

Ashland  Stock  Food  Digester 

4772 

4.4 

14.3 

4.7 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  millet,  cane 
seed,  sunflower  seed,  linseed  oil 
cake,  limestone  grit 
Wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings, 
ground  wheat  screenings,  corn  glu- 
ten feed,  corn  feed  meal,  linseed  oil 
meal,  heneta  grit,  (sodium,  lime,  sil- 
ica, phosphorus  compounds) 

Wheat,  corn,  clipped  oats,  sunflower 
seed,  oyster  shell,  heneta  grit,  (sodi- 
um, lime,  silica,  phosphorus  com- 
pounds) 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo  maize,  bar- 
ley, buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo  maize,  bar- 
ley, buckwheat,  sunflower  seed,  5% 
marble  grit 

Corn,  kafir,  milo  maize,  millet  seed, 
flaxseed,  whole  wheat  screenings 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo  maize,  Can- 
ada peas,  buckwheat,  sunflower  seed 


Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  milo,  barley,  em- 
mer,  sunflower  seed,  whole  wheat 
screenings,  limestone  grit 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  cane  seed, 
buckwheat 

Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  oats,  millet 
Wheat,  corn,  kafir,  barley,  oats,  milo 
maize,  sunflower  seed 


Gentian,  nux  vomica,  capsicum, 
white  arsenic,  iron  sulphate,  sodium 
sulphate,  wheat  middlings 
Blood  root,  sulphur,  horse  medley, 
fenugreek,  asafetida,  copperas,  to- 
bacco, salt,  ground  bituminous 
coal,  flaxseed  meal,  old  process  lin- 
seed oil  meal 

Copperas,  santonin,  Indian  worm 
seed,  calomel,  Epsom  salt,  May  ap- 
ple root,  aloes,  slippery  elm,  soda, 
reddog  flour 

Horse  medley,  sulphur,  Indiana  worm 
seed,  red  percoon  root,  asafetida, 
fenugreek,  copperas,  bicarbonate  of 
soda,  tobacco,  salt,  linseed  oil  meal 
Red  percoon  root,  sulphur,  copperas, 
horse  medley,  santonin,  asafetida, 
fenugreek,  Indiana  worm  seed,  to- 
bacco, coal,  Epsom  salt,  salt,  flax- 
seed meal,  old  process  linseed  oil 
meal,  reddog  flour,  standard  wheat 
middlings 

Venetian  red,  red  pepper,  sulphate  of 
iron,  hyposulphite  of  soda,  salt, 
oyster  shells,  wheat  middlings 
Fenugreek,  nux  vomica,  sulphate  of 
iron,  hyposulphite  of  soda,  char- 
coal, salt  petre,  salt,  wheat  mid- 
dlings 


60  Succeeded  by  The  Amos  Stock  Tonic  Co. 


149 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


LABEL 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


§ 

3 .4- 
m rt 
cn  c«h 

.2  8® 
A ft  y 


tn  ^ 
cn  G ft 

® 0)  aj 

— 1 y<2 

jj  _ T? 

£ | u 
A ft  y 


and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Barker,  Moore  & Mein  Medicine  Company, 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Barker’s  Special  Poultry  Remedy 


Barker’s  Chemical  & Vegetable  Horse,  Cattle 
& Poultry  Medicinal  Powder 


Betz,  Gatus  N.,  Wabash  (Celina,  R.  R.  2), 

Ohio 

Jones  Red  Powder 

Blackman  Stock  Remedy  Company, 
Chattanooga,  Tenn. 

Owen’s  Health  and  Egg  Producer 

Blatchford  Calf  Meal  Factory,  Waukegan,  111.51 
Blatchford’s  Genuine  Old  English  Tonic  and 
Regulator  


6678 


8007 


6707 


6242 


7271 


Blatchford’s  Lamb  Meal 


7767 


Blatchford’s  Topping  Off  Meal,  (Formerly, 
Sugar  & Flaxseed)  


Blatchford  Calf  Meal  Company,  Waukegan,  111. 
Blatchford’s  “Fill  the  Basket”  Egg  Mash 


8836 


Blatchford’s  Milk  Mash 


9127 


Blue  Moon  Corrector  Company,  The, 
Crawfordsville,  Ind. 

The  Blue  Moon  Hog  Corrector 


5.0 


5.0 


1.0 


8.0 


4.0 


10.0 


4.0 


4.0 


2.0 


18.0 


20.0 


3.5 


8.0 


21.0 


20.0 


25.0 


19.0 


20.0 


11.0 


10.0 


10.0 


5.0 


9.5 


6.0 


8.0 


10.0 


7.5 


10.0 


Fenugreek,  ginger,  gentian,  resin, 
pennyroyal,  cascara  sagrada,  pep- 
per, iron  oxide,  salt  petre,  sulphate 
of  iron,  charcoal,  sulphur,  salt, 
chalk,  linseed  meal 
Charcoal,  gentian,  sodium  nitrate, 
sulphate  of  iron,  fenugreek,  flowers 
of  sulphur,  rosin,  salt,  African  gin- 
ger, pennyroyal  herb,  cascara  sa- 
grada, linseed  cake  meal 
Nux  vomica,  cayenne  pepper,  Vene- 
tian red,  flowers  of  sulphur,  oxide 
of  iron,  wheat  middlings 

Rosin,  sulphur,  copperas,  red  pepper, 
charcoal,  oyster  shells,  bone  flour, 
blood  meal 

Peruvian  bark,  gentian,  fenugreek, 
anise,  ginger,  licorice,  sulphate  of 
iron,  sulphate  of  soda,  chloride  of 
sodium,  sarsaparilla,  sulphur,  char- 
coal, locust  bean  meal,  flaxseed, 
wheat  flour,  rice  polish,  blood  flour, 
barley  meal,  bean  meal,  pea  meal, 
old  process  linseed  oil  meal,  cocoa 
shell  meal,  cocoanut  meal,  cotton- 
seed meal,  dried  milk 
Anise  seed,  locust  bean  meal,  barley 
meal,  blood  flour,  linseed  oil  meal, 
rice  polish,  bean  meal,  cottonseed 
meal,  corn  meal,  wheat  flour,  salt 
Gentian,  anise,  sulphate  of  soda,  lo- 
cust bean  meal,  bean  meal,  pea 
meal,  cottonseed  meal,  old  process 
linseed  oil  meal,  cocoa  shell  meal, 
flaxseed,  rice  polish,  cocoanut  meal, 
%%  salt 

Fenugreek,  anise,  capsicum,  locust 
bean  meal,  flaxseed,  wheat  flour, 
rice  polish,  blood  flour,  barley  meal, 
malt  sprout  meal,  bean  meal,  pea 
meal,  old  process  linseed  oil  meal, 
cocoa  shell  meal,  cocoanut  meal, 
cottonseed  meal,  dried  milk,  alfalfa, 
corn  meal,  oat  meal,  wheat  bran, 
wheat  middlings,  meat  scraps,  fish, 
bone,  salt,  powdered  limestone 
Fenugreek,  anise,  locust  bean  meal, 
flaxseed,  wheat  flour,  barley  meal, 
malt  sprout  meal,  blood  flour,  bean 
meal,  pea  meal,  rice  polish,  old  pro- 
cess linseed  oil  meal,  cocoa  shell 
meal,  cocoanut  meal,  cottonseed 
meal,  dried  milk,  corn  meal,  oat 
meal,  wheat  middlings,  meat  scraps, 
fish,  bone,  salt,  powdered  limestone 
Gentian  root,  mandrake  root,  mad- 
der, African  ginger,  asafetida,  cal- 
cium carbonate,  sodium  bicarbon- 
ate, sodium  sulphate,  sodium  chlo- 
ride, Epsom  salt,  sulphur,  ferrous 
sulphas  exicated  (dried  copperas), 
charcoal,  linseed  meal 


61  Succeeded  by  Blatchford  Calf  Meal  Company 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Blue  Moon  Stock  Corrector  Company,  The,52 
Crawfordsville,  Ind. 

Blue  Moon  Stock  Corrector 

Boulden,  Wm.,  Cyclone,  Ind. 

3137 

2.2 

12.0 

5.0 

Gentian,  asafetida,  ginger,  man- 
drake, fenugreek,  resin,  sodium  bi- 
carbonate, sodium  sulphate,  sodium 
chloride,  Epsom  salt,  potassium 
nitrate,  sulphate  of  iron,  sulphur, 
linseed  meal 

Boulden  Stock  Food  

Bradick,  B.  F.,  Y.  S.,  Grayville,  111. 

Dr.  Bradick’s  Medicated  Stock  Tonic 

Brinkman,  W.  E.,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind. 

1392 

3.1 

15.2 

11.0 

Salt,  bicarbonate  of  soda,  asafetida, 
sulphur,  horse  medley,  blood  root, 
senna  seed,  ginger,  charcoal,  salt 
petre,  linseed  cake 

7604 

4.0 

15.5 

6.5 

Black  antimony,  madder,  worm  seed, 
ginger,  fenugreek,  nux  vomica,  gen- 
tian, copperas,  charcoal,  potassium 
nitrate  (salt  petre),  sulphur,  Glaub- 
er’s salt,  Epsom  salt,  bicarbonate 
of  soda,  salt,  wood  and  corn  cob 
ashes,  linseed  oil  cake 

Superior  Poultry  Food 

1507 

2.5 

7.0 

5.0 

Oat  meal,  corn  meal,  middlings,  bone 
meal,  Venetian  red,  capsicum,  salt 

Buckeye  Company,  The,  Lorain,  Ohio 

Buckeye  Poultry  Powder  

0081 

Gentian  root,  Venetian  red,  sulphate 
of  iron,  hyposulphite  of  soda, 
Glauber’s  salt,  nux  vomica,  salt 
petre,  charcoal,  sodium  chloride, 
ground  wheat  screenings 

Buckeye  Stock  Conditioner __ 

Buffington  Famous  Condition  Powder  Com- 
pany, Petroleum,  Ind. 

6082 

Gentian  root,  ginger,  fenugreek  seed, 
anise  seed,  nux  vomica,  sulphate  of 
iron,  Glauber’s  salt,  salt  petre,  Ep- 
som salt,  charcoal,  sodium  chloride, 
ground  wheat  screenings 

The  Buffington  Famous  Condition  Powder___ 

3400 

4.0 

15.0 

9.0 

Copperas,  sulphur,  fenugreek,  salt 
petre,  linseed  meal 

Burch  & Company,  Inc.,  F.  S.,  Chicago,  111. 

Petaluma  Egg  Producer 

4617 

2.0 

18.0 

5.0 

Ferrous  sulphate,  sodium  chloride, 
sulphur,  calcium  carbonate,  tobacco, 
ashes,  dried  blood,  ground  screen- 
ings from  flaxseed 

Sandford’s  Fgg  Producer _ 

Busch  Remedy  Company,  Inc.,  The, 

Evansville,  Ind. 

4969 

2.0 

18.0 

5.0 

Ferrous  sulphate,  sodium  chloride, 
sulphur,  calcium  carbonate,  tobacco, 
ashes,  dried  blood,  ground  screen- 
ings from  flaxseed 

Busch’s  Poultry  Laying  Tonic 

Capitol  Food  Company,  The,  Tiffin,  Ohio 

3999 

1.2 

15.0 

8.5 

Gentian,  ginger,  capsicum,  nux  vom- 
ica, cantharides,  iron  sulphate,  po- 
tassium nitrate,  Epsom  salt,  Vene- 
tian red,  bone  meal,  oyster  shell, 
malt  sprouts 

Capitol  Stock  Remedy 

4611 

10.0 

Gentian,  fenugreek,  anise  seed,  quas- 
sia, wormseed,  nux  vomica,  magne- 
sium sulphate,  ferrous  sulphate,  so- 
dium chloride,  charcoal,  screenings 
from  flaxseed 

Capitol  Poultry  Remedy 

4612 

9.0 

Capsicum,  nux  vomica,  quassia, 
wormseed,  magnesium  sulphate,  fer- 
rous sulphate,  iron  oxide,  potassium 
permanganate,  sulphur,  screenings 
from  flaxseed 

Capitol  Animal  Regulator 

4613 

10.0 

Gentian,  anise  seed,  quassia,  nux 
vomica,  copperas,  wormseed,  Epsom 
salt,  sodium  bicarbonate,  charcoal, 
screenings  from  flaxseed 

52  Succeeded  by  The  Blue  Moon  Corrector  Co. 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 


and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Carpenter  Company,  W.  D.,  Syracuse,  N.  Y. 

7398 

Chambers  Stock  Powder  Company,  The, 

Rossville,  111. 

Chambers  Poultry  Powder 

3881 

3.0 

17.0 

4.5 

Chambers  Hog  Remedy 

3882 

2.8 

15.0 

4.0 

Chambers  Horse  Conditioner 

3883 

2.5 

13.5 

3.5 

Chambers  Cattle  Powder _ 

3884 

2.5 

15.0 

4.0 

Christmas  Medicine  Company,  W.  C., 

Boonville,  Ind. 

“Christmas”  Stock  Food  — 

9371 

1.5 

10.0 

8.0 

“Christmas”  Poultry  Food  _ 

Conkey  Company,  The  G.  E.,  Cleveland,  Ohio 
Conkey’s  Buttermilk  Starting  Food 

9372 

1.5 

10.0 

9.0 

7212 

. 3.0 

12.0 

4.0 

Crosier  Stock  & Poultry  Pow’der  Company, 

New  Albany,  Ind. 

Crosiers’  Poultry  Powder — 

4640 

2.0 

5.0 

6.0 

Crosiers  Horse  & Cattle  Powder _ 

4641 

4.0 

5.0 

11.0 

Dairy  Association  Company,  The, 

Lyndonville,  Vt. 

Kow  Kure  __  - _ 

7591 

.... 

7.0 

Daisy,  W.  H.,  Kokomo,  Ind. 

Daisy  Horse,  Cattle,  Sheep  and  Hog  Tonic— 

8723 

5.0 

5.0 

15.0 

Daniels,  Inc.,  Dr.  A.  C.,  Boston,  Mass. 

Dr.  A.  C.  Daniels’  Cow  Invigorator 

6271 

5.0 

10.5 

12.7 

Davis  Stock  Food  Company,  Chicago,  111. 

Davis  Poultry  Food  Tonic  . _ . - _ 

3403 

3.0 

6.0 

12.0 

Caraway,  anise,  fenugreek,  coriander, 
quassia,  nux  vomica,  wild  cherry, 
xantharrhiza,  cascara  sagrada,  gin- 
ger, sulphur,  charcoal,  sodium  bi- 
carbonate, sodium  chloride,  linseed 
meal,  flaxseed  meal,  cottonseed 
feed,  bean  meal,  ground  screenings 
from  wheat,  flax,  seeds 

Capsicum,  Venetian  red,  sulphur, 
copperas,  resin,  bicarbonate  of 
soda,  salt,  oyster  shell,  flaxseed 
meal 

Copperas,  resin,  sulphur,  bicarbonate 
of  soda,  Epsom  salt,  salt  petre, 
salt,  flaxseed  meal 

Copperas,  resin,  sulphur,  bicarbonate 
of  soda,  Epsom  salt,  salt,  charcoal, 
cold  pressed  flaxseed  meal,  salt 
petre 

Copperas,  resin,  sulphur,  bicarbonate 
of  soda,  salt,  cold  pressed  flaxseed 


Gentian,  ginger,  capsicum,  sassafras, 
percoon  root,  poplar  bark,  charcoal, 
sodium  chloride,  wheat  middlings 

Gentian,  ginger,  copperas,  capsicum, 
sassafras,  charcoal,  bone,  wheat 
middlings 

Gentian  root,  iron  sulphate,  (cop- 
peras), mustard  seed,  wheat,  corn, 
hulled  oats,  wheat  middlings,  bone, 
evaporated  buttermilk 

African  ginger,  fenugreek  seed,  blood 
root,  American  Venetian  red,  sul- 
phur, wood  ashes,  mustard  bran, 
ground  flaxseed 

African  ginger,  gentian  root,  blood 
root,  black  antimony,  sassafras 
bark,  rosin,  iron  sulphate,  sulphur, 
charcoal,  wood  ashes,  ground  flax- 
seed, salt  petre 

Fenugreek,  ginger  root,  capsicum, 
spearmint,  asafetida,  elecampane, 
uva  ursi,  damiana  leaves,  witch 
hazel  leaves,  garget  root,  boneset, 
aletria,  cinchona,  black  haw  bark, 
potassium  nitrate,  Epsom  salt,  car- 
bonate of  iron,  wheat  middlings 

Fenugreek,  asafetida,  salt  petre,  cop- 
peras, horse  medley,  bicarbonate  of 
soda,  ginger,  blood  root,  black  pep- 
per, flowers  of  sulphur,  tobacco 
dust,  wood  ashes,  salt,  ground  flax- 
seed 

Poplar  bark,  Epsom  salt,  salt,  spear- 
mint, carbonate  of  iron,  nitre,  (salt 
petre)  elecampane,  ginger,  pepper, 
sulphur,  poke  root,  boneset,  asafet- 
ida, gentian,  fenugreek,  althaea, 
Peruvian  bark,  life  root,  queen  of 
the  meadows,  water  pepper,  bone 
meal 

Ginger,  capsicum,  sulphur,  iron  ox- 
ide, sodium  sulphate,  sodium  chlo- 
ride, acid  phosphate,  charcoal,  bone 
meal,  wheat  middlings 


152 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


LABEL 


Official  No. 

Guaranteed  1 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

. 3404 

3.0 

6.0 

12.0 

4585 

666 

15.0 

6.0 

24.7 

4480 

13.0 

8.0 

5.0 

4481 

13.5 

6.0 

4.0 

4628 

5.0 

13.5 

5.0 

5431 

11.5 

19.5 

4.0 

6523 

9.0 

15.0 

6.0 

4020 

9.0 

6982 

9.6 

4.8 

12.9 

8044 

8.2 

13.5 

12.4 

6369 

1.5 

7.0 

2.0 

6737 

0.6 

10.0 

5.0 

9407 

5.0 

17.0 

14.0 

8712 

6041 

0.5 

3.0 

3.0 

8478 

.... 

750 

3.7 

14.0 

< 

10.0 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Davis  Stock  Food  Company,  Chicago,  111. 
Davis  Stock  Food  Tonic 


Deam  & Spivey,  Bluffton,  Ind. 

Deam’s  Egg  Food  & Poultry  Powder. 


Ehrmann  & Company,  Terre  Haute,  Ind. 
Ehrmann’s  Poultry  Food  

Erb,  Jr.,  Fred,  West  Lafayette,  Ind. 

Big  Chick  Feed 

Little  Chick  Feed 

Scratch  Feed  

Fred  Erb,  Jr.,  Stock  Food 

Erb’s  Egg  Maker  Quick 

Fleck,  J.  J.,  Tiffin,  Ohio 
Flecks  Poultry  Powder 


Furst-McNess  Company,  Freeport,  111. 
F.  W.  McNess  Poultry  Tonic 


F.  W.  McNess  Stock  Food 


Geiger-Fishback  Company,  Indianapolis,  Ind 
Hog  Feed  

German  Reliable  Medicine  Company, 

Decatur,  Ind. 

German  Reliable  Stock  Food 

Gibson  Live  Stock  & Feed  Company, 
Princeton,  Ind. 

Pilgrim  Hog  Feed 


Gifford,  Charlie,  Russiaville,  Ind. 

Gifford’s  Stock  Tonic  & Worm  Expeller. 


Golden  Drop  Medicine  Company,  Chrisney,  Ind. 
Peerless  Poultry  Powder  


Guarantee  Food  Company  of  Pennsylvania, 
Lewisburg,  Pa. 

Keystone  Stock  Conditioner 


Hale,  G.  S.,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind. 
Hale’s  Spanish  Poultry  Powder 


Gentian,  anise,  mandrake,  fennel, 
wormseed,  sulphur,  nux  vomica,  iron 
sulphate,  acid  phosphate,  sodium 
chloride,  charcoal,  wheat  middlings 

Sodium  chloride,  sodium  sulphate, 
sodium  bicarbonate,  sulphur,  iron 
sulphate,  fenugreek,  black  anti- 
mony, gentian,  ginger,  potassium 
nitrate,  potassium  bitartrate,  asa- 
fetida,  capsicum,  Venetian  red,  bone 
meal,  wheat  shorts,  linseed  oil  cake 

Pork  and  beef  cracklings,  bone,  meat, 
cayenne  pepper,  carbolic  acid 

Cracked  corn,  meat,  sulphur,  oil  of 
tar,  linseed  oil 

Bolted  corn  meal,  meat,  sulphur,  oil 
of  tar,  linseed  oil 

Wheat,  corn,  oats,  meat,  sulphur, 
linseed  oil,  oil  of  tar 

Sulphur,  oil  of  tar,  linseed  oil,  meat, 
corn  meal 

Linseed  oil,  sulphur,  oil  of  tar,  bolt- 
ed corn  meal,  meat 

Fenugreek,  sassafras,  sage  leaves, 
bayberry  bark,  Venetian  red,  cay- 
enne pepper,  bicarbonate  of  soda, 
sulphate  of  magnesia,  mustard 
bran,  bone  meal,  oyster  shells 

Gentian,  quassia,  ginger,  capsicum, 
copperas,  sulphur,  charcoal,  Vene- 
tian red,  oyster  shell,  wheat  mid- 
dlings 

Capsicum,  coriander,  ginger,  quassia, 
fenugreek,  areca  nut,  sulphur,  sul- 
phate of  iron,  potassium  nitrate, 
sodium  sulphate,  salt,  charcoal, 
wheat  middlings 

Bicarbonate  of  soda,  phosphate  of 
lime,  salt,  wheat  flour,  corn  flour, 
rice  flour 

Fenugreek,  elecampane,  gentian, 
blood  root,  sulphur,  wood  ashes, 
salt,  sugar,  ground  flaxseed  meal, 
wheat  middlings 

Gentian,  sodium  bicarbonate,  cop- 
peras, sulphur,  wormseed,  Epsom 
salt,  wheat  shorts,  rye  shorts,  rye 
bran,  ground  rye  screenings,  velvet 
bean  feed,  linseed  meal,  corn  feed 
meal,  digester  tankage,  salt 

Sulphate  of  iron,  nux  vomica,  horse 
medley,  sulphur,  magnesium  sul- 
phate, Spanish  brown,  sodium  chlo- 
ride 

Copperas,  copper  sulphate,  capsicum, 
Venetian  red,  nitrate  of  potassium, 
wheat  shorts 

Flowers  of  sulphur,  copperas,  Epsom 
salt,  fenugreek,  gentian,  African 
ginger,  Bombay  capsicum,  ground 
cocoa  shells,  buckwheat  hulls 

Frumentem  powder  (corn  meal)  sul- 
phur. Venetian  red,  black  antimony, 
capsicum 


i53 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


LABEL 


Harlan  Products  Company,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 
Pan-Ian  Stock  Regulator 


Pan-Ian  Poultry  Regulator 


Heitman  Bros.,  Holland,  Ind. 

H.  B.  Poultry  Remedy  and  Egg  Producer. 


H.  B.  Horse  and  Cattle  Powder 

Henderson  & Company,  W.  D., 

Fort  Wayne,  Ind. 

Atlas  Medicated  Stock  Salt 

Herb  Medicine  Company,  The,  Springfield,  Ohio 
Lightning  Horse,  Cattle  & Poultry  Powders. 

Hess  & Clark,  Dr.,  Ashland,  Ohio 
Dr.  Hess  Poultry  Pan-a-ce-a  


Dr.  Hess  Stock  Tonic 


Hocker,  Melvin,  Elwood,  Ind. 
Hocker’s  Tonic  

Hog  Joy  System,  Springfield,  111. 
Gro-Fast  


Home  Medicine  Company,  The,  Dallas  City,  111. 
K.  K.  Conditioner  


K.  K.  Poultry  Tonic 


Illinois  Stock  Food  Company,  Paris,  111. 
Illinois  Stock  Food 

Indispensable  Chemical  Company, 
Kokomo,  Ind. 

Indispensable  Condition  Powder 

International  Stock  Food  Company, 
Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Special  International  Medicinal  Poultry 
Food  Tonic 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

9271 

4.5 

25.0 

6.5 

Gentian,  fenugreek,  sulphur,  san- 
guinaria,  carbo  ligni,  asafetida,  po- 
tassium tartrate,  ginger,  mandrake, 
populace  alba,  sodium  chloride,  lin- 
seed oil  meal 

9292 

4.5 

25.0 

6.5 

Gentian,  fenugreek,  sulphur,  san- 
guinaria,  carbo  ligni,  asafetida,  po- 
tassium tartrate,  ginger,  mandrake, 
populace  alba,  sodium  chloride,  oys- 
ter shell,  linseed  oil  meal 

50h6 

5.0 

3.0 

5.0 

Borax,  cream  of  tartar,  salt,  bicar- 
bonate of  soda,  capsicum,  nitrate 
of  potash,  resin,  oxide  of  calcium, 
black  antimony,  ground  flaxseed 

5007 

1.0 

7.0 

5.0 

Sulphur,  Glauber’s  salt,  bicarbonate 
of  soda,  Jamaica  ginger,  fenugreek, 
black  antimony,  salt,  linseed  meal 

4839 

— - 

10.0 

Fenugreek,  copperas,  gentian  root, 
rosin,  chalk,  salt  petre,  salt,  char- 
coal, linseed  oil  meal 

5251 

— 

— 

6.0 

Fenugreek,  sulphur,  salt  petre,  Ep- 
som salt,  rosin,  flaxseed  meal,  lin- 
seed oil  cake  meal 

7758 

1.0 

2.0 

26.0 

Quassia,  nux  vomica,  potassium  ni- 
trate, calcium  carbonate,  sodium 
hyposulphite,  sodium  chloride,  iron 
sulphate,  iron  oxide,  fine  ground 
cottonseed  hulls 

7759 

1.0 

2.0 

24.0 

Quassia,  nux  vomica,  charcoal,  po- 
tassium nitrate,  sodium  sulphate, 
magnesium  sulphate,  sodium  chlo- 
ride, iron  sulphate,  fenugreek,  fine 
ground  cottonseed  hulls 

4282 

0.8 

5.0 

1.5 

Glauber’s  salt,  antimony  sulphide, 
sulphur,  fenugreek,  salt  petre,  alum, 
charcoal,  linseed  meal 

Vegetable  ash  containing  silica,  iron, 
alumina,  calcium,  magnesium,  sul- 
phur, sodium,  potassium  and  phos- 
phorus compounds 

7446 

4965 

10.0 

Fenugreek,  gentian,  nux  vomica,  sul- 
phur, hypo  sulphite  of  soda,  potas- 
sium nitrate,  sodium  chloride,  lin- 
seed oil  meal,  wheat  middlings 

4966 

5.0 

Ginger,  black  pepper,  nux  vomica, 
sulphur,  bicarbonate  of  soda,  iron 
sulphate,  carbonate  of  iron,  oyster 
shells,  wheat  middlings 

3986 

5.0 

15.0 

7.0 

Sulphur,  ginger,  sulphate  of  iron, 
(copperas)  sodium  hypo  phosphite, 
charcoal,  sugar,  wheat  middlings, 
linseed  meal 

7936 

10.0 

Gentian,  sulphur,  sodium  chloride, 
copperas,  lime,  anise,  charcoal,  ash, 
Epsom  salt 

7421 

— 

"T- 

Sassafras,  gentian,  copperas,  calcium 
carbonate,  mustard,  ginger,  char- 
coal, magnesium  carbonate,  poplar 
bark,  capsicum,  quassia,  mustard 
bran,  quartz  grit 

154 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

International  Stock  Food  Company, 
Minneapolis,  Minn. 

International  Medicinal  Stock  Food  Tonic 

7940 

20.0 

Salt  petre,  gentian,  mustard,  ginger, 

International  Hog  Worm  Powder 

International  Hog  Tonic _ 

9080 

9081 

30.0 

25.0 

capsicum,  charcoal,  quassia,  cin- 
chona bark,  rosin  weed,  Colombo, 
poplar  bark,  iron  sulphate,  (cop- 
peras), nux  vomica,  sulphur,  salt, 
prepared  meal  from  wheat,  oats, 
rye  and  barley 

Areca  nut,  wormseed,  blue  vitriol, 
naphthalin,  sulphur,  bicarbonate  of 
soda,  hypo  sulphite  of  soda,  Glaub- 
er’s salt,  black  antimony,  salt, 
charcoal,  prepared  meal  from  wheat, 
oats,  rye  and  barley 

Capsicum,  ginger,  gentian,  quassia. 

Iowa  City  Food  & Remedy  Company, 

Iowa  City,  Iowa 

Iowa  City  Stock  Tonic 

5550 

6.9 

28.3 

7.5 

cinchona  bark,  rosin  weed,  Colombo, 
mustard,  poplar  bark,  iron  sul- 
phate (copperas)  nux  vomica,  sul- 
phur, salt  petre,  salt,  charcoal, 
Glauber’s  salt,  prepared  meal  from 
wheat,  oats,  rye  and  barley 

Gentian,  ginger,  fenugreek,  anise 

Jordan,  Geo.  M.,  Vincennes,  Ind. 

G.  M.  J. — “Pig  Meal” 

9267 

4.0 

17.5 

10.0 

seed,  licorice,  charcoal,  salt,  linseed 
meal 

Gentian,  quassia,  powdered  senna 

G.  M.  J.  Chick  Chowder 

9268 

3.5 

20.0 

10.0 

leaves,  Epsom  salt,  charcoal,  sul- 
phate of  iron,  (copperas),  sulphur, 
tobacco,  salt,  wheat  shorts,  ground 
wheat  screenings,  corn  feed  meal, 
digester  tankage,  rye  bran,  rye  mid- 
dlings (with  ground  mill  run  rye 
screenings) 

Gentian,  quassia,  powdered  senna 

K.  & B.  Medicine  Company,  Kirklin,  Ind. 

K.  & B.  Hog  Tonic  _ ___  __ 

8349 

4.0 

14.0 

13.0 

leaves,  Epsom  salt,  charcoal,  sul- 
phate of  iron  (copperas)  sulphur, 
tobacco,  salt,  wheat  shorts,  wheat 
bran,  ground  wheat  screenings,  rye 
bran,  rye  middlings,  ground  rye 
screenings,  corn  feed  meal,  digester 
tankage,  alfalfa  meal,  molasses 
Gentian,  ginger,  copperas,  Colombo, 

King  Company,  The,  Rockford,  111. 

King  Poultry  Tonic 

7945 

3.6 

8.1 

11.5 

madder,  sulphur,  wood  charcoal, 
sodium  bicarbonate,  salt  petre,  Ep- 
som salt,  Glauber’s  salt,  salt,  lin- 
seed meal 

Spanish  flies,  African  capsicum,  gen- 
tian root,  African  ginger,  Venetian 
red,  American  sulphur,  ground  co- 
coa shells,  ground  mussel  shells,  al- 
falfa meal,  American  shipstuff 
(wheat  middlings,  bran) 

Sulphate  of  iron,  gentian  root,  ele- 

King Stock  Tonic  ___ 

I 

7946 

2.0 

7.3 

15.7 

Klein  Lambert  Company,  The, 

Chicago,  (Blue  Island),  111. 

0.  K.  Stock  Food 

5998 

5.0 

25.0 

12.0 

campane  root,  salts  of  tartar,  gin- 
ger root,  mandrake  root,  cascara 
sagrada  bark,  fenugreek  seed,  Amer- 
ican wormseed,  anise  seed,  pumpkin 
seed,  juniper  berries,  African  capsi- 
cum, coriander  seed,  sodium  bicar- 
bonate, American  sulphur,  areca 
nuts,  sodium  chloride,  cocoa  shells, 
charcoal,  linseed  meal,  American 
shipstuff  (wheat  middlings,  bran) 
Gentian,  fenugreek,  sodium  chloride, 

0.  K.  Poultry  Food 

5999 

5.0 

25.0 

8.0 

linseed  meal,  charcoal 

Gentian,  fenugreek,  sodium  chloride, 

subcarbonate  of  iron,  wheat  mid- 
dlings, linseed  meal,  charcoal 

i55 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Kokomo  Hog  Remedy  Company,  Kokomo,  Ind. 
Digestion  Regulator  for  Hogs  

9317 

4.5 

22.0 

9.0 

Juniper  berries,  gentian,  wild  cherry 

Komo  Manufacturing  Company, 

Knightstown,  Ind. 

Komo  Hog  Tonic 

6178 

3.0 

3.0 

6.0 

bark,  rosin,  burdock  root,  elecam- 
pane, ginger,  Glauber’s  salt,  areca 
nuts,  anise,  nux  vomica,  spikenard, 
wood  charcoal,  iron  oxide,  potas- 
sium carbonate,  sodium  carbonate, 
corn  germ  meal,  tankage,  kiln  dried 
corn 

American  wormseed,  Glauber’s  salt, 

Komo  Stock  Tonic  __  

6192 

3.0 

5.0 

16.0 

Jamaica  ginger,  bicarbonate  of 
soda,  sodium  chloride,  charcoal,  sul- 
phur, wood  ashes,  flaxseed  meal 
Gentian,  Jamaica  ginger,  fenugreek, 

Kutz-Bronson  Medicine  Company, 

Kirklin,  Ind.53 

K.  & B.  Stock  Conditioner 

3886 

5.0 

14.0 

9.5 

elecampane,  caraway  seed,  anise 
seed,  fennel  seed,  wormseed,  areca, 
St.  John’s  bread,  (carob  beans), 
sodium  sulphate,  sulphur,  flaxseed 
meal,  corn  meal,  wheat  middlings 
Gentian,  fenugreek,  black  antimony, 

K.  & B.  Poultry  Tonic  and  Egg  Producer 

4357 

5.0 

14.0 

6.5 

asafetida,  ginger,  copperas,  san- 
guinaria,  mandrake,  Colombo,  pop- 
lar bark,  madder,  sulphur,  wood 
charcoal,  potassium  bitartrate, 
Glauber’s  salt,  salt,  linseed  cake 
Ginger,  gentian,  capsicum,  fenugreek, 

Lancaster,  Dills  Brattain  & Company, 
Greencastle,  Ind. 

0.  D.  Shover’s  Poultry  Powder  . 

7560 

2.0 

cantharides,  Venetian  red,  sulphur, 
Epsom  salt,  linseed  oil  cake,  beef 
scraps,  blood  meal,  bone  meal 
Fenugreek,  black  antimony,  Spanish 

Shover’s  Stock  Food 

8307 

2.0 

brown,  blood  root,  sulphur,  salt, 
old  process  linseed  oil  meal 
Fenugreek,  black  antimony,  Spanish 

Lee  Company,  Geo.  H.,  Omaha,  Neb. 

Lee’s  Best  Conditioner 

4526 

2.0 

25.0 

10.0 

brown,  blood  root,  sulphur,  salt, 
linseed  oil  meal 

Gentian,  ginger,  fenugreek,  sulphur, 

Lees  Egg  Maker ‘ 

5258 

2.0 

30.0 

5.0 

anise,  licorice,  rhubarb,  cayenne, 
potassium  nitrate,  (salt  petre)  iron 
sulphate  (copperas)  charcoal,  salt, 
corn  germ  meal,  linseed  meal 
Potassium  nitrate,  sodium  sulphate, 

LeGear  Medicine  Company,  Dr.  L.  D., 

St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Dr.  LeGear’s  Poultry  Powder 

8135 

3.0 

4.0 

50.0 

ginger,  gentian,  fenugreek,  iron  sul- 
phate, cayenne,  salt,  sulphur,  char- 
coal, granulated  blood,  linseed  meal 

Ginger,  charcoal,  salt,  capsicum,  iron 
sulphate,  ground  oyster  shell,  (pal- 
mo  meal)  composed  of  ground 
wheat  middlings,  ground  peanut 
hulls  and  palm  oil 

Charcoal,  salt,  sodium  nitrate,  fennel 

Dr.  LeGear’s  Stock  Powders  . 

8136 

3.0 

4.0 

50.0 

Ludwig  Remedy  Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Appe  Tona  Medicated  Stock  Conditioner 

7606 

3.5 

10.4 

9.0 

seed,  ginger,  sodium  bicarbonate, 
iron  sulphate,  quassia,  nux  vomica, 
(palmo  meal),  composed  of  ground 
wheat  middlings,  ground  peanut 
hulls  and  palm  oil 

Nux  vomica,  gentian,  anise,  fenu- 

Appe-Tona Poultry  Conditioner 

7607 

6.0 

16.7 

14.0 

greek,  potassium  nitrate,  copperas, 
sulphur,  charcoal,  salt,  alfalfa 
meal,  cottonseed  meal 

Nux  vomica,  capsicum,  potassium 

Maple  City  Stock  Food  Company,  Laporte,  Ind. 
Maple  City  Poultry  Food  & Conditioner 

3207 

3.3 

17.5 

9.2 

nitrate,  copperas,  calcium  hydrate, 
sulphur,  charcoal,  salt,  alfalfa,  cot- 
tonseed meal 

Carbonate  of  iron,  anise  seed,  Afri- 

can ginger,  mustard,  salt,  sulphur, 
licorice  root,  willow  charcoal,  ashes, 
alfalfa  meal,  meat  meal 

63  Succeeded  by  K.  & B.  Medicine  Co. 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 


73 

y 


O 


lie 

«2|  ft  o 


2-pI 

O C«H 

7-\  ft  w 


and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Maple  City  Stock  Eood  Company,  Laporte,  Ind. 

Maple  City  Stock  Eood  & Conditioner 

4705 

1.0 

6.0 

4.0 

Moorman  Manufacturing  Company,  Quincy,  111. 

Moorman’s  Concentrated  Horse  Powder 

5058 

6.6 

12.6 

5.8 

Moorman’s  Special  Cattle  Powder  . 

5059 

8.2 

18.3 

7.5 

McCrillus  Medical  Company,  Muncie,  Ind. 

5088 

2.0 

McCrillus’  Poultry  Tonic 

5989 





2.0 

National  Manufacturing  Company,  Elora,  Ind. 

National  Stock  Tonic 

8879 

0.2 

1.5 

3.0 

Old  Kentucky  Manufacturing  Company, 
Paducah,  Ky. 

B.  A.  Thomas’  Improved  Stock  Remedy 

6160 

— 

0.5 

6.0 

B.  A.  Thomas’  Improved  Poultry  Remedy 

6161 

.... 

Pratt  Eood  Company,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Pratts  Poultry  Regulator  

4492 

3.0 

8.0 

23.0 

Pratts  Baby  Chick  Food 

4494 

2.5 

12.0 

2.0 

Pratts  Calf  Tonic 

6025 

1.0 

1.0 

10.0 

Pratts  Cow  Tonic 

6345 

1.0 

1.0 

10.0 

Pratts  Animal  Regulator  

8171 

1.0 

1.0 

25.0 

Pratts  Conditioner  for  Horses  and  Cattle 

8172 

1.0 

1.0 

25.0 

Potassium  nitrate,  sulphur,  apocy- 
num,  anise  seed,  licorice  root,  yel- 
low poplar  bark,  rosin,  charcoal, 
red  pepper,  hyposulphite  of  soda, 
Armenian  bole,  quaking  asp  bark, 
salt,  linseed  meal,  alfalfa  meal, 
wheat  middlings 

Ginger,  fenugreek,  copperas,  areca 
nut,  sulphur,  black  antimony,  sul- 
phate of  soda,  salt,  linseed  meal, 
siftings  from  com  cereal  foods 

Ginger,  gentian,  fenugreek,  tamarac 
bark,  sulphur,  charcoal,  salt,  linseed 
meal,  siftings  from  corn  cereal 
foods 

Gentian,  fenugreek,  American  worm- 
seed,  podophyllin,  sanguinaria,  bi- 
carbonate of  soda,  sulphate  of  iron, 
sulphur,  charcoal,  Glauber’s  salt, 
nux  vomica 

Gentian,  African  ginger,  African  cap- 
sicum, sanguinaria,  podophyllin,  bi- 
carbonate of  soda,  sulphate  of  iron, 
sulphur,  Glauber’s  salt,  nux  vomica, 
bone  meal,  charcoal 

Epsom  salt,  sulphate  of  iron,  bicar- 
bonate of  soda,  lime,  (calcium  ox- 
ide), salt,  com  germ  meal 

Magnesium  sulphate,  ferrous  sul- 
phate, calcium  hydrate,  sodium 
chloride,  sulphur,  pulvis  ligni,  (char- 
coal), cob  meal 

Magnesium  sulphate,  ferrous  sul- 
phate, calcium  hydrate,  sodium 
chloride,  pulvis  os,  (bone  meal), 
shell  meal 

Red  Peruvian  bark,  gentian,  ginger, 
sassafras  bark,  fenugreek,  cayenne, 
caraway,  sulphur,  sub  carbonate  of 
iron,  oxide  of  iron,  shell  meal, 
ground  grain  screenings 

Gentian,  ginger,  pepper,  caraway, 
Epsom  salt,  rape,  hulled  oats,  corn 
meal,  wheat  middlings,  cooked 
wheat,  millet,  bone  meal,  shell  meal 

Gentian,  ginger,  fenugreek,  asafetida, 
nux  vomica,  oxide  of  iron,  salt, 
corn  meal 

Gentian  root,  ginger  root,  fenugreek, 
nux  vomica,  cascarilla,  cinchona, 
oxide  of  iron,  charcoal,  salt,  ground 
grain  screenings 

Gentian  root,  quassia,  ginger,  fenu- 
greek, fennel  seed,  nux  vomica,  Ep- 
som salt,  Glauber’s  salt,  sulphate  of 
iron,  salt,  charcoal,  palmo  meal, 
(peanut  meats,  peanut  shells,  palm 
oil) 

Gentian,  quassia,  ginger,  fenugreek, 
fennel  seed,  nux  vomica,  Epsom 
salt,  Glauber’s  salt,  sulphate  of 
iron,  salt,  charcoal,  palmo  meal, 
(peanut  meats,  peanut  shells,  palm 
oil) 


i57 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 

Prussian  Remedy  Company,  St.  Paul,  Minn. 

Prussian  Stock  Tonic 

1713 

3.0 

10.0 

12.0 

Gentian,  anise  seed,  fenugreek,  sul- 
phur, sodium  chloride,  elecampane, 
ginger,  asafetida,  charcoal,  ferrous 
sulphate,  sodium  sulphate,  sassa- 
fras, licorice  root,  capsicum,  cheni- 
podium,  curcuma,  wheat  shorts,  rye 
shorts,  ground  flaxseed  screenings 

Prussian  Poultry  Tonic 

1977 

1.0 

5.0 

20.0 

Gentian,  anise  seed,  fenugreek,  sul- 
phur, elecampane,  ginger,  asafetida, 
charcoal,  sodium  sulphate,  sassa- 
fras, licorice  root,  capsicum,  cheni- 
podium,  curcuma,  bone  meal,  oyster 
shells,  sodium  chloride,  copperas, 
rye  shorts,  wheat  shorts,  ground 
flaxseed  screenings 

Prussian  Horse  Tonic  

Pure  Drug  Company,  Bloomingdale,  Ind. 

4706 

3.5 

11.0 

8.0 

Gentian,  ginger,  fenugreek,  elecam- 
pane, anise  seed,  sassafras,  licorice 
root,  chenipodium,  curcuma,  asafet- 
ida, capsicum,  sulphur,  charcoal, 
sodium  sulphate,  sodium  chloride, 
iron  sulphate,  rye  shorts,  wheat 
shorts,  ground  flaxseed  screenings 

Pure  Drug  Poultry  Remedy  & Egg  Producer. 
“The”  Pure  Drug  Treatment  for  Horses, 

3252 

2.0 

12.0 

10.0 

Venetian  red,  capsicum,  oyster  shell, 
wheat  middlings,  linseed  meal 

Cattle,  Sheep  & Hogs 

3626 

1.5 

5.5 

5.0 

Iron  carbonate,  fenugreek,  salt, 
wheat  middlings 

Ragon  Stock  Food  Company,  D.  S., 

Evansville,  Ind. 

Farmers  Stock  Food  

261 

4.8 

13.5 

6.7 

Charcoal,  gentian,  ginger,  capsicum, 
sassafras,  puccoon  root,  poplar 
bark,  sodium  chloride,  wheat  mid- 
dlings 

Farmers  Poultry  Food 

Rawleigh  Company,  The  W.  T.,  Freeport,  111. 

262 

5.6 

16.3 

8.0 

Gentian,  ginger,  copperas,  charcoal, 
sassafras,  capsicum,  bone,  wheat 
product 

Rawleighs  Poultry  Powder  

6005 

0.2 

16.1 

27.6 

Ginger,  fenugreek,  quassia,  capsicum, 
copperas,  sulphur,  charcoal,  oyster 
shells,  ground  bone,  tankage,  wheat 
middlings 

Rawleighs  Stock.  Tonic 

Redding,  J.  H.,  Hobart,  Ind. 

J.  H.  Redding’s  Hog  & Chicken  Cholera 

6006 

6.6 

10.8 

10.6 

Fenugreek,  gentian,  ginger,  capsicum, 
quassia,  anise  seed,  sulphur,  char- 
coal, sodium  chloride,  sodium  phos- 
phate, ferrous  sulphate,  wormseed, 
wheat  middlings 

Medicine  _ _ 

Republic  Stock  Food  & Medical  Company, 
Decatur,  Ind. 

7843 

1.5 

0.3 

3.0 

Spanish  brown,  sulphur,  wood  ashes, 
sodium  bicarbonate,  black  anti- 
mony, capsicum,  copperas,  Glaub- 
er’s salt,  salt  petre,  arsenic,  linseed 
oil  meal,  raw  linseed  oil,  charcoal, 
rosin,  alum 

Republic  Stock  Food 

Roberts  Veterinary  Company,  Dr.  David, 

5100 

3.5 

10.0 

7.0 

Fenugreek,  elecampane,  gentian,  salt, 
ashes,  sugar,  ground  flaxseed  meal, 
wheat  middlings 

Waukesha,  Wis. 

Dr.  David  Roberts  Hog  Tonic 

6216 

2.5 

10.0 

10.0 

Anise,  fenugreek,  gentian,  licorice, 
nitrate  of  potash,  (salt  petre),  sul- 
phate of  iron,  (copperas),  charcoal, 
corn  starch,  corn  meal 

Dr.  David  Roberts  Poultry  Tonic  _ 

Rust  & Sons,  Wm.,  New  Brunswick,  N.  J. 

Rust’s  Tri-Plex  Stock  Food 

6217 

5.5 

31.0 

7.6 

Gentian,  ginger,  fenugreek,  sassafras, 
licorice,  anise,  capsicum,  sulphur, 
sulphate  of  iron,  (copperas)  nitrate 
of  potash,  (salt  petre),  salt,  blood 
meal,  bone  meal,  cottonseed  meal, 
linseed  meal,  corn  starch,  corn  meal 

4075 

2.0 

13.0 

2.8 

Fenugreek,  cinchona,  gentian,  cara- 
way, sulphur,  sodium  bicarbonate, 
sodium  chloride,  wheat  middlings 

158 

Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  l 

LABEL 

Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

Rust  & Sons,  Wm.,  New  Brunswick,  N.  J. 

Rust’s  Havens  Climax  Powder 

5013 

2.0 

5.0 

25.0 

Rust’s  Egg  Producer  _ _ ___  

5014 

1.0 

10.0 

15.0 

Security  Remedy  Company,  Minneapolis,  Minn. 
Security  Calf  Food  Compound  

5073 

4.5 

9.8 

6.0 

Seneca  Company,  Inc.,  The,  Tiffin,  Ohio 

Seneca  Hog  Remedy 

5528 





10.0 

Shores-Mueller  Company,  Cedar  Rapids,  Iowa 
Shores  Hog  Powder 

4886 

6.6 

14.3 

14.1 

Shores  Stock  Regulator 

4887 

7.2 

9.7 

13.8 

Shores  Stock  Tonic 

4888 

7.0 

9.5 

11.5 

Shores  Poultry  Powder  _ 

4889 

3.6 

12.3 

12.5 

Shrader  Drug  Company,  Iowa  City,  Iowa 
Eureka  Stock  Food 

756 

6.7 

30.2 

9.5 

Eureka  Poultry  Food 

1262 

5.0 

17.6 

6.1 

Snoddy  Remedy  Company,  The  Dr.  J.  H., 

Alton,  111. 

The  Snoddy  Remedy 

6296 

0.5 

11.6 

8.3 

Soudan  Specialty  Mfg.  Co.,  Milwaukee,  Wis. 
Soudan  Blood  Toner 

6190 

5.0 

17.0 

6.0 

Souder  Company.  The,  Kokomo,  Ind. 

Souders  Stock  Conditioner  and  Fat  Producer 

3204 

10.9 

14.5 

7.9 

Stahl,  L.  N.,  Geneva,  R.  R.  5,  Ind. 

Poultry  Remedy  

5885 

1.0 

4.0 

5.0 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Red  cinchona,  quassia,  capsicum,  fen- 
nel, gentian,  sodium  bicarbonate, 
sulphur,  linseed  meal 

Capsicum,  quassia,  sulphur,  iron  sul- 
phate, sodium  bicarbonate,  char- 
coal, bone,  shells,  flaxseed 

Locust  bean  meal,  fenugreek,  anise, 
ginger,  oxide  of  iron,  sulphate  of 
iron,  salt,  corn  starch,  wheat  flour, 
wheat  middlings,  powdered  milk, 
sugar 

Fenugreek,  Spanish  brown,  copperas, 
sulphur,  soda  bicarbonate,  Epsom 
salt,  salt  petre,  charcoal,  cinders, 
linseed  oil  meal 

Gentian  root,  anise  seed,  fenugreek 
seed,  sassafras  bark,  quassia,  mag- 
nesium sulphate,  charcoal,  potas- 
sium nitrate,  sulphur,  sodium  chlo- 
ride, dried  blood,  ground  flax, 
wheat  screenings 

Gentian  root,  ginger  root,  licorice 
root,  fenugreek  seed,  anise  seed, 
wormseed,  coriander  seed,  sassafras 
bark,  quassia,  capsicum,  magnesium 
sulphate,  charcoal,  potassium  ni- 
trate, sulphur,  sulphate  of  iron,  so- 
dium chloride,  ground  flax,  wheat 
screenings 

Gentian  root,  ginger  root,  licorice 
root,  fenugreek  seed,  anise  seed, 
quassia,  capsicum,  magnesium  sul- 
phate, charcoal,  sulphate  of  iron, 
sulphur,  sodium  chloride,  ground 
flax,  wheat  screenings 

Gentian  root,  fenugreek  seed,  nux 
vomica,  capsicum,  sulphate  of  iron, 
iron  oxide,  sulphur,  sodium  carbon- 
ate, charcoal,  sodium  chloride,  dried 
blood,  shells,  ground  flax,  wheat 
screenings 

Anise,  blood  root,  fenugreek,  gen- 
tian, ginger,  licorice,  linseed  meal, 
salt,  charcoal 

Bone  meal,  gentian,  fenugreek,  blood 
root,  capsicum,  wheat  middlings, 
buckwheat  middlings,  carbonate  of 
iron 

Sulphur,  copper  sulphate,  arsenic  tri- 
oxide, charcoal,  phytolacca,  (poke 
root),  sodium  sulphate,  ammonium 
chloride,  mandrake,  wheat  middlings 

Gentian,  ginger,  fenugreek,  anise 
seed,  elecampane,  elm  bark,  sodium 
bicarbonate,  charcoal,  salt,  w7heat 
middlings,  ground  flax  screenings 

Sulphur,  black  antimony,  fenugreek, 
salt  petre,  asafetida,  rosin,  cream 
of  tartar,  Glauber’s  salt,  gentian, 
flaxseed,  oil  cake 

Sulphur,  bicarbonate  of  soda,  Ja- 
maica ginger,  wheat  middlings,  lin- 
seed oil  meal 


i59 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 


£ 

a e 

s 

& 

JS  3 

+3  b 

+*  • 4-3 

-•->  . o 

a> 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 

S C^H 

Sc  ft 

O C«H 

following  ingredients 

.2  8® 
O 3 

S 8® 

Is  3 

a!  ft  0 

ft  « 

Standard  Chemical  Manufacturing  Company, 
Omaha,  Neb. 

Standard  Stock  Pood  


5172 


Standard  Poultry  Tonic 7587 

St.  Clair  Live  Stock  Remedy  Company, 

East  St.  Louis,  111. 

Clarina  Sheep  Tonic  & Worm  Expeller 9366 


Clarina  Horse  & Mule  Tonic  & Worm  Ex- 
peller   


9367 


Clarina  Hog  Tonic  & Worm  Expeller. 


9368 


Clarina  Poultry  Tonic 


Clarina  Cattle  Tonic  & Worm  Expeller. 


9370 


Stevens  Stock  Food  Company,  Wabash,  Ind. 
Stevens  Stock  Food  


1000 


Stock  Food  Company  of  America, 
Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Clover  Brand  Poultry  Tonic 


Union  Stock  Food  Company,  Simpsonville,  Ky. 
Union  Stock  Tonic  


5232 


Union  Poultry  Tonic 5233 

United  Breeders  Company  of  America, 

Syracuse,  N.  Y. 

Baum’s  Cattle  Tonic  2059 


Baum’s  Sheep  Tonic 


3148 


12.0 


15.0 


18.0 

29.0 


26.0 


25.0 


14.0 


18.0 

21.0 


Caraway  seed,  anise  seed,  coriander 
seed,  fenugreek  seed,  capsicum,  gen- 
tian root,  yellow  dock  root,  ginger 
root,  licorice  root,  sulphur,  bicar- 
bonate of  soda,  salt,  charcoal, 
ground  wheat  screenings 

Ginger  root,  capsicum,  gentian  root, 
charcoal,  salt,  bone  meal,  dried 
blood,  alfalfa  meal,  peanut  meats, 
peanut  hulls 

Sulphate  of  iron,  areca  nut,  pumpkin 
seed,  lobelia,  American  wormseed, 
gentian,  ginger,  licorice,  bicarbonate 
of  soda,  charcoal,  American  flower 
of  sulphur,  sassafras,  sodium  chlo- 
ride, ground  delinted  cottonseed 
hulls 

Sulphate  of  iron,  areca  nut,  pumpkin 
seed,  lobelia,  American  wormseed, 
gentian,  ginger,  licorice,  bicarbonate 
of  soda,  charcoal,  American  flower 
of  sulphur,  sassafras,  sodium  chlo- 
ride, ground  delinted  cottonseed 
hulls 

Sulphate  of  iron,  areca  nut,  pumpkin 
seed,  lobelia,  American  wormseed, 
gentian,  ginger,  licorice,  bicarbonate 
of  soda,  charcoal,  flower  of  sul- 
phur, sassafras,  sodium  chloride, 
sulphate  of  copper,  ground  delinted 
cottonseed  hulls 

Sulphate  of  iron,  gentian,  ginger, 
capsicum,  sodium  bicarbonate,  char- 
coal, sassafras,  potassium  nitrate, 
hydrate  of  lime,  ground  delinted 
cottonseed  hulls 

Sulphate  of  iron,  areca  nut,  pumpkin 
seed,  lobelia,  American  wormseed, 
gentian,  ginger,  licorice,  bicarbonate 
of  soda,  charcoal,  sassafras,  sodium 
chloride,  ground  delinted  cottonseed 
hulls 

Gentian,  sassafras  bark,  buchu 
leaves,  nitrate  of  potash,  sodium 
chloride,  willow  charcoal,  fenugreek, 
wheat  middlings 

Gentian,  capsicum,  ginger,  charcoal, 
copperas,  anise,  bone  meal,  oyster 
shells,  alfalfa  meal 

Epsom  salt,  fenugreek,  anise  seed, 
sulphur,  salt,  charcoal,  tobacco 
dust,  ground  cottonseed  hulls 

Capsicum,  sulphur,  oxide  of  iron, 
carbonate  of  lime,  ground  oyster 
shells,  ground  rice  hulls 


1.0  10.0  Serpentaria,  cascara  sagrada,  gen- 

tian, mustard  seed,  sulphur,  magne- 
sium sulphate,  sodium  bicarbonate, 
nitre,  charcoal,  sodium  chloride,  lic- 
orice root,  ginger,  capsicum,  yellow 
dock,  Colombo,  linseed  meal 
1.0  10.0  Gentian,  zedoary,  galega,  sulphate 

of  magnesia,  wormseed,  sage,  bicar- 
bonate of  soda,  sulphur,  chloride  of 
sodium,  ginger,  capsicum,  mustard 
seed,  charcoal,  linseed  meal 


i6o 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 


United  Breeders  Company,  of  America, 
Syracuse,  N.  Y. 

Baum’s  Poultry  Tonic 


Baum’s  Dairy  Tonic 


Baum’s  Horse  Tonic 


Baum’s  Hog  Tonic 


United  States  Food  Company,  The, 
Pleasant  City,  Ohio 
U.  S.  Stock  Food  Tonic 


U.  S.  Poultry  Food  Tonic 


U.  S.  Animal  Regulator 

Universal  Products  Company, 
Fairmount,  W.  Ya. 

Uproco  Poultry  Tonic 


Uproco  Horse  & Cattle  Powders 

Watkins  Medical  Company,  The  J.  R., 
Winona,  Minn. 

Watkins  Stock  Tonic  


Watkins  Poultry  Tonic 

Waukarusha  Stock  Food  Company,  The  Lewis, 
Lee,  Ind. 

Waukarusha  Stock  Food, : 


Official  No. 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fat 

Not  less  than 

per  cent. 

crude  protein 

Not  more  than 

per  cent. 

crude  fiber 

4215 

1.0 

1.0 

10.0 

4216 

1.0 

1.0 

10.0 

4217 

1.0 

1.0 

10.0 

4218 

1.0 

1.0 

10.0 

7493 

— - 

.... 

12.0 

8890 

— 

— 

16.0 

8891 

— 

12.0 

7698 

— - 

3.5 

3.0 

7699 

3.5 

3.0 

5898 

3.0 

10.0 

9.0 

5936 

2.5 

7.0 

6.0 

1090 

5.5 

32.0 

11.0 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 
following  ingredients 


Ginger,  cayenne  pepper,  anise,  gen- 
tian, mustard  seed,  sulphur,  sul- 
phate of  iron,  bicarbonate  of  soda, 
carbonate  of  iron,  Colombo,  nux 
vomica,  charcoal,  linseed  meal 
Gentian,  ginger,  capsicum,  anise, 
mustard  seed,  galega,  pipsissewa, 
stillingla,  licorice  root,  yellow  dock, 
nitre,  sulphate  of  magnesia,  bicar- 
bonate of  soda,  sulphate  of  iron, 
sulphur,  charcoal,  chloride  of  sodi- 
um, sugar,  linseed  meal 
Ginger,  gentian,  capsicum,  anise, 
mustard  seed,  wormseed,  spigelia, 
elecampane,  nux  vomica,  cascara 
sagrada,  licorice  root,  sulphate  of 
magnesia,  sulphate  of  iron,  carbon- 
ate of  iron,  bicarbonate  of  soda, 
chloride  of  sodium,  nitre,  charcoal, 
sugar,  linseed  meal 
Gentian,  ginger,  mustard  seed,  anise, 
berberis  aquifolium,  spigelia,  worm- 
seed,  areca,  hyposulphite  of  soda, 
bicarbonate  of  soda,  chloride  of 
sodium,  sulphate  of  magnesia,  sul- 
phur, nitre,  charcoal,  sugar,  linseed 
meal 

Gentian  root,  blood  root,  Epsom 
salt,  ginger,  sulphur,  poplar  bark, 
licorice  root,  charcoal,  fenugreek, 
salt,  copperas,  quassia,  flax  screen- 
ings 

Ginger,  sulphur,  Epsom  salt,  Vene- 
tian red,  quassia,  fenugreek,  salt, 
copperas,  ground  flax  screenings 
Ginger,  quassia,  copperas,  Epsom 
salt,  sulphur,  American  wormseed, 
charcoal,  fenugreek,  salt,  ground 
flax  screenings 

Mustard,  (sinapis  alba),  capsicum, 
Venetian  red,  sulphate  of  iron,  cal- 
cium carbonate,  sodium  chloride, 
oyster  shells,  wheat  bran,  wheat 
middlings 

Sodium  chloride,  nux  vomica,  rosin, 
sulphur,  ginger,  copperas,  fenu- 
greek, digitalis,  senna,  charcoal, 
wheat  bran,  wheat  middlings 
Anise  seed,  areca  nuts,  cascara  sa- 
grada, charcoal,  capsicum,  cori- 
ander seed,  elecampane  root,  fenu- 
greek seed,  gentian  root,  ginger 
root,  juniper  berries,  mandrake 
root,  wormseed,  pumpkin  seed,  sul- 
phate of  iron,  sodium  chloride, 
sodium  bicarbonate,  American  sul- 
phur, salts  of  tartar,  linseed  meal, 
standard  wheat  middlings 
Venetian  red,  American  sulphur,  Afri- 
can ginger,  Spanish  flies,  gentian 
root,  capsicum,  ground  shells, 
standard  wheat  middlings 
Sulphur,  resin,  sulphate  of  iron,  salt 
petre,  oil  meal 


i6i 


Brands  Certified  by  Manufacturers  as  Being  on  Sale,  May  1,  1918  (continued) 


Guaranteed  by  the  manufacturer  to  contain 


LABEL 


fi 

c§ 

+»  .-g 

1 1 

1 H 

« .S 

and  to  be  composed  of  the 

m a 

03 

m £ 

03  G ft 

O 

following  ingredients 

583 

III 

U O'  a, 
-1  0,2 
■4J  . T3 

£ | £ 
At  ft  O 

s 

0 *3 

Whelan,  Omer  G.,  Richmond,  Ind. 
Whelan’s  Chop  Feed 


7933 


Wilbur  Stock  Food  Company,  Milwaukee,  Wis. 
Wilbur’s  Stock  Tbnic 


Wilbur’s  Poultry  Tonic 


Wilbur’s  Hog  Tonic 


5691 

5692 

6619 


4.0  12.0 


3.0  17.0 

3.0  17.0 

2.0  10.0 


10.0  Gentian,  ginger,  fenugreek,  cascarilla, 
elecampane,  blood  root,  golden  seal, 
bitter  sweet,  caraway,  dandelion, 
mandrake,  salt,  charcoal,  quassia, 
copperas,  Venetian  red,  ground 
grain  screenings,  corn,  oats,  corn 
feed  meal,  corn  bran,  wheat  bran, 
wheat  middlings,  ground  wheat 
screenings,  linseed  meal,  cotton  seed 
meal,  corn  gluten  feed,  corn  germ 
meal 

6.0  Fenugreek,  gentian,  ginger,  anise 

seed,  elecampane,  blood  root,  elm 
bark,  quassia,  soda,  charcoal,  salt, 
wheat  middlings 

6.0  Fenugreek,  gentian,  ginger,  anise 

seed,  elecampane,  blood  root,  elm 
bark,  quassia,  soda,  Venetian  red, 
charcoal,  salt,  wheat  middlings 
10.0  Fenugreek,  gentian,  ginger,  anise 

seed,  elecampane,  blood  root,  elm 
bark,  quassia,  bicarbonate  of  soda, 
charcoal,  salt,  wheat  middlings, 
ground  flax  screenings 


INDEX 

Page 


Attention — consumers,  agents  and  dealers 8 

Condimental  feeds  6 

Fractional  sales 4 

Freight  bills  and  invoices 4 

Labels 3 

New  feeds  on  sale 6 

New  rulings  on  animal  feeding  stuff 9 

Purchasing  feeds 4 

Refunds  5 

Remarks  to  agents,  dealers,  distributors  and  consumers 3 

Samples  4 

Short  weight  shipments 4 

State  Chemist’s  label,  reproduction 5 

Suggestions  to  purchasers 8 

Unlabeled  shipments 4 


Contents  oe  Tables 

Pages 

Alfalfa  meal  94-95 

Animal  by-products 95-101 

Barley  cleanings  87 

Bran,  middlings,  shorts,  chop  feeds,  corn  feed  meal  and  other 

mill  by-products  11-70 


1 62 


INDEX  (continued) 

Pages 

Brewers’  dried  grains 88-89 

Chop  feeds  containing  corn  bran 72-79 

Cocoanut  by-products 79 

Cold  pressed  cottonseed 84 

Condimental  stock  and  poultry  feeds 148-161 

Corn  germ  meal  90 

Corn  germ  meal  and  corn  distillers’  dried  grains 91 

Corn  gluten  feed 89 

Corn  gluten  meal 90 

Cottonseed  hulls  85 

Cottonseed  meal  79-84 

Cottonseed  meal  and  cottonseed  hulls  (cottonseed  feed) 84-85 

Distillers’  dried  grains 87 

Dried  beet  pulp  . 94 

Dried  buttermilk 94 

Hominy  meals,  feeds  and  chops 9I-93 

Linseed  meal  85-86 

Linseed  meal  and  screenings  oil  feed 86 

Miscellaneous  chop  feed,  containing  cob  meal,  oat  hulls,  wheat 

screenings  or  other  filler 70-72 

Miscellaneous  chop  feed,  containing  corn  and  cob  meal 

(crushed  ear  corn)  70 

Peanut  feed 87 

Poultry  and  scratch  feed 123-148 

Proprietary  and  molasses  feed 101-123 

Unscreened  flaxseed  oil  feed 86 

Velvet  bean  feed 86-87 

Yeast  grains 89 


■(><  7 

yvZ  i*- 


/ 


/ 


PURDUE  UNIVERSITY 

Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


Bulletin  No.  217 
August,  1918 

’""‘A 

OKIYEBSITy  OF  ILLINOIS  LlSIUar 



TNOV  4 1918 


COMMERCIAL  FEEDING  STUFFS 


r 


Published  by  the  Station: 
LAFAYETTE,  INDIANA 
U.  S.  A. 


PURDUE  UNIVERSITY  AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 


BOARD  OP  CONTROL 
Joseph  D.  Oliver,  President,  South  Bend 

Fay  S.  Chandler, l.lndianapolis  Warren  T.  McCray Kentland 

Charles  Downing  Greenfield  James  W.  Noel Indianapolis 

John  A.  Hillenbrand Batesville  Andrew  E.  Reynolds Crawfordsville 

Cyrus  M.  Hobbs Bridgeport  William  V.  Stuart LaFayette 

Winthrop  E.  Stone,  A,  M.,  Ph.  D President  of  the  University 

ADVISORY  COMMITTEE 
(Under  Legislative  Act  of  1909) 

John  G.  Brown,  Monon D.  B.  Johnson,  Mooresville 

State  Live  Stock  Association  State  Dairy  Association 

U.  R.  Fishel,  Hope D.  F.  Maish,  Frankort : 

State  Poultry  Fanciers-’  Association  State  Corn  Growers'  Association 

F.  J.  Heacock,  Salem Indiana  Horticultural  Society 


ADMINISTRATION 
Charles  G.  Woodbury,  M.  S.,  Director 

Harry  J.  Reed Assistant  to  the  Director 

Nellie  Tracy Administrative  Assistant 

Mary  K.  Bloom Bookkeeper 

AGRICULTURAL  EXTENSION 
George  I.  Christie,  B.  S,  A.,  Superintendent 

Thomas  A.  Coleman Ass’t  State  Leader 

Field  Studies  and  Demonstrations 

George  M.  Frier,  B.  S.  A Associate  in 

Charge  of  Short  Courses  and  Exhibits 
Mabel  L.  Harlan. .Ass’t  in  Agricultural  Extension 

Richard  S.  Thomas,  B.  S 

Ass’t  in  Soils  and  Crops  Extension 

ANIMAL  HUSBANDRY 
John  H.  Skinner,  B.  S.,  Chief 

Claude  M.  Vestal,  B,  S 

Associate  in  Animal  Husbandry 

George  A.  Branaman,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Animal  Husbandry 

Herbert  E.  McCartney,  B.  S.  A 

Ass’t  in  Animal  Husbandry  Extension 

BOTANY 

Herbert  S.  Jackson,  A.  B.,  Chief 

George  N,  Hoffer,  M.  S Associate  in  Botany 

Luna  E.  Allison,  B.  S Assistant  in  Botany 

Edwin  B.  Mains,  Ph.  D Assistant  in  Botany 

DAIRY  HUSBANDRY 
Ralph  E.  Caldwell,  B.  S.,  Acting  Chief 

Howard  W.  Gregory,  B.  S 

Associate  in  Dairy  Manufactures 
George  Spitzer,  Ph.  G.,  B.  S ..... 

Associate  in  Dairy  Chemistry 

Harry  M.  Weeter,  M.  S 

Associate  in  Dairy  Bacteriology 

Turner  H.  Broughton,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Creamery  Inspection 

William  F.  Epple,  Ph.  G 

Assistant  in  Dairy  Chemistry 

Hubert  W.  Fleisher,  B.  S.  A 

Assistant  in  Creamery  Inspection 

ENTOMOLOGY 
James  Troop,  M.  S.,  Chief 

FARM  MECHANICS 

William  Aitkenhead,  M.  E.,  M.  A 

Specialist  in  Farm  Mechanics 

HORTICULTURE 
Laurenz  Greene,  M.  S.  A.,  Chief 

Harry  A.  Noyes,  M.  S Associate  in 

Horticultural  Chemistry  and  Bacteriology 
Joseph  Oskamp,  B.  S.,  Associate  in  Pomology 

Walter  A.  Huelson,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Horticulture 

NUTRITION 

Ralph  H.  Carr,  Ph.  D 

Associate  in  Nutrition  Chemistry 


POULTRY  HUSBANDRY 
Allen  G.  Philips,  B.  S.  A.,  Chief 

Dwight  C.  Kennard,  Ph.  C.,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Husbandry 

Lewis  H.  Schwartz,  B.  S.  A 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Husbandry 

SOILS  AND  CROPS 
Alfred  T.  Wiancko,  B.  S.  A.,  Chief 

Martin  L.  Fisher,  M.  S 

Assistant  Chief  in  Soils  and  Crops 

Samuel  D.  Conner,  M.  S 

Associate  Chemist  in  Soils  and  Crops 

Clinton  O.  Cromer,  B.  S Associate  in  Crops 

Sadocie  C.  Jones,  M.  S Associate  in  Soils 

Ernest  N.  Fergus,  M.  Sc 

Assistant  in  Soils  and  Crops 

STATE  CHEMIST 

Edward  G.  Proulx,  M.  S.1.. Acting  State  Chemist 
Reuben  O.  Bitler,  B.  S.2....Deputy  State  Chemist 

Margaret  Briggs,  B.  S Deputy  State  Chemist 

Paul  B.  Curtis,  B.  S.2 Deputy  State  Chemist 

Omar  W.  Ford,  A.  B.2 Deputy  State  Chemist 

Herman  J.  Nimitz.  B.  S.2.. Deputy  State  Chemist 
J.  Howard  Roop,  B.  S.2.... Deputy  State  Chemist 

Samuel  F.  Thornton,  B.  S.2 

Deputy  State  Chemist 

Otis  S.  Roberts,  B.  S.2 

Chief  Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

Glen  G.  Carter,  B.  S.2 

Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

Benjamn  F.  Catherwood  2 

Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

Wlliam  B.  Tiedt  

Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

VETERINARY  SCIENCE 
Robert  A.  Craig,  D.  V.  M.,  Chief 
David  B.  Clark,  D.  M.  C... Associate  Veterinarian 

Lawrence  C.  Kigin,  D.  V.  M V 

Associate  Veterinarian 

George  N.  Roberts,  D.  V.  M 

Associate  Veterinarian 

Rex  A.  Whiting,  D.  V.  M 

Associate  in  Animal  Pathology 

Carl  H.  Clink,  B.  S Ass’t  in  Serum  Production 

Leo  P.  Doyle,  B.  S Ass’t  in  Animal  Pathology 

Leslie  R.  George,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Animal  Pathology 
Fred  L.  Walkey,  D.  V.  M Ass’t  Veterinarian 

DETAILED  BY  U.  S.  DEPARTMENT  OF 
AGRICULTURE 

Cereal  and  Forage  Crop  Insect  Investigations 
John  J.  Davis,  B.  S..  Entomological 
Assistant  in  Charge 

John  M.  Aldrich,  Ph.  D.,  Entomological  Assistant 

Herman  J.  Hart,  B.  S Scientific  Assistant 

Wesley  O.  Hollister,  B.  S... Scientific  Assistant 

Dean  A.  Ricker,  B.  S Scientific  Assistant 

Chester  F.  Turner,  B.  S Scientific  Assistant 

Seed  Testing 

Anna  M.  Lute,  M.  A Seed  Analyst 


1 In  charge  of  Fertilizer  and  Feeding  Stuff  Control 

2 Connected  with  Fertilizer  and  Feeding  Stuff  Control 


COMMERCIAL  FEEDING  STUFFS 


E.  G.  ProuIvX 

C.  Cutler1  R.  B.  De^mer2  J.  H.  Roop  H.  J.  Nimitz  O.  S.  Roberts 


The  enactment  of  the  Indiana  Feeding  Stuffs  Control  law  by  the 
legislature  of  1907  and  amended  in  1909  was  due  largely  to  the  efforts 
of  the  farmers’  organizations  and  feeders  of  the  State. 

The  demand  for  the  enactment  of  such  a law  was  the  result  of  the 
knowledge  of  many  feeders  that  Indiana  was  the  dumping  ground  for 
inferior  feeds  sold  under  misleading  names,  that  could  not  be  sold  in 
states  having  feeding  stuffs  laws,  and  that  the  sale  of  flaxseed  screenings 
meal  for  linseed  meal,  cottonseed  feed  for  cottonseed  meal,  ground  oat 
hulls  for  ground  oats,  feeds  containing  ground  corn  cobs  for  pure  mill 
by-products  and  similar  practices,  were  common. 

The  law  has  been  in  active  force  for  11  years,  and  if  expressions  of 
opinions  received  from  purchasers  of  feed,  manufacturers,  agents  and 
dealers  are  representative,  it  is  satisfactorily  serving  the  purpose  for 
which  it  was  enacted. 

The  fear  expressed  by  many  manufacturers  and  dealers  that  the  en- 
forcement of  the  law  would  prove  a serious  handicap  to  the  trade  has  not 
been  realized,  since  the  sales  have  shown  a substantial  growth  each  year. 
A large  part  of  this  increase  can  justly  be  attributed  to  the  fact  that  Indi- 
ana purchasers  of  feeds  have  reasonable  assurance  that  they  will  secure 
the  feed  they  purchase  and  not  an  inferior  or  adulterated  article. 

OBJECTS  OF  THE  LAW 

The  Indiana  Feeding  Stuffs  Control  law  is  entrusted  to  the  State 
Chemist  for  enforcement  and  the  objects  of  the  law  briefly  stated,  are 
registration  of  all  brands  of  commercial  feeds  under  names  which  are 
descriptive  and  not  misleading  to  the  consumer,  securing  and  affixing 
State  Chemist’s  labels  to  each  and  every  package  and  delivering  to  agents 
and  consumers  feeding  stuffs  which  correspond  to  the  attached  State 
Chemist’s  label. 

The  State  Chemist  will  gladly  furnish  upon  request  a copy  of  the 
Indiana  Feeding  Stuffs  Control  law,  together  with  full  information  re- 
garding compliance  with  this  law. 

MANUFACTURERS 

The  provisions  of  the  law,  together  with  the  manner  of  its  enforce- 
ment, seem  to  be  very  well  understood  by  the  manufacturers  and  need 
not  be  again  published  in  this  bulletin.  New  manufacturers  selling  feed 
in  Indiana  should  communicate  with  the  State  Chemist  and  receive  a copy 
of  the  law,  together  with  all  necessary  information  concerning  it. 


1 Resigned  December  1,  1917 

2 Resigned  February  1,  1918 


4 


This  information  is  contained  in  Purdue  University  Agricultural 
Experiment  Station  Circular  No.  75  entitled  “The  Feeding  Stuffs  Control 
Law  and  How  to  Comply  With  It.”  Copies  of  this  publication  will  be 
furnished  without  cost  upon  request. 

AGENTS,  DEALERS,  DISTRIBUTERS 

The:  Law. — Before  offering  or  exposing  for  sale,  selling  or  distribut- 
ing feed  in  Indiana,  secure  a copy  of  the  law  and  rulings  and  carefully 
study  its  provisions  and  requirements. 

Companies. — Before  accepting  the  agency  for  any  company,  consult 
the  reports  of  the  State  Chemist  and  contract  to  represent  only  companies 
whose  records  from  year  to  year  show  compliance  with  the  law. 

Persons  or  firms  who  continue  to  represent  and  purchase  from  com- 
panies with  poor  records  of  inspection,  should  bear  in  mind  that  the  per- 
son offering  or  exposing  for  sale,  selling  or  distributing  the  feed  in  In- 
diana is  directly  responsible  for  feed  so  exposed,  sold  or  distributed. 
Failure  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  law  and  repeated  sales  as  above, 
will  leave  the  State  Chemist  no  option  but  to  file  information  with  the 
prosecuting  attorney. 

Labels. — A reproduction  of  the  official  label,  which  is  the  only  label 
that  can  legally  be  used  in  the  sale  or  distribution  of  feeds  in  Indiana,  and 
which  must  be  secured  from  the  State  Chemist,  will  be  found  on  page  6. 
Do  not  accept,  offer  or  expose  for  sale,  sell,  deliver  or  distribute  any 
package  or  any  quantity  of  commercial  feeding  stuffs  which  does  not 
have  attached  or  which  is  not  accompanied  by  a legal  label  for  each  100 
pounds  or  fraction.  Dealers  cannot  shift  the  responsibility  for  selling 
unlabeled  feed  to  the  manufacturer  if  unlabeled  shipments  are  accepted. 

Fractional  Sales. — The  sale  of  small  amounts  from  original 
labeled  packages  has  been  held  by  the  Attorney  General  to  be  contrary 
to  law  and  all  sales  whether  of  1,  2,  5,  15,  25,  50,  75  or  100  pounds  must 
be  accompanied  by  a State  Chemist’s  label.  The  special  attention  of 
agents  and  dealers  selling  condimental  feeds,  tonics,  conditioners,  etc., 
and  chicken  feeds  is  called  to  this  ruling. 

Shipments  Without  Legal  Labels  Attached. — In  most  ship- 
ments there  can  be  no  valid  reason  for  shipment  without  labels.  In 
cases  where  shipments  are  made  without  labels  attached,  the  latter  being 
forwarded  separately  by  mail  or  express,  the  same  should  be  attached  to 
sacks  before  offered  for  sale. 

Contracts. — In  contracting  for  feeds,  do  not  make  purchases  on  the 
basis  of  private  labels  or  advertising  matter.  Ascertain  that  the  feed 
offered  is  properly  registered,  by  examination  of  the  State  Chemist’s  re- 
ports, or  by  requiring  the  manufacturer  or  his  agent  to  show  official 
label,  (see  reproduction,  page  6).  Examine  the  record  of  inspection 
of  said  brand.  Contract  on  the  basis  of  the  official  guarantee  and  insert 
registration  number,  which  always  appears  at  the  top  of  the  official  label 
in  the  contract.  Examine  labels  attached  to  packages  or  accompanying  bulk 
shipments  on  arrival  and  if  not  according  to  contract,  refuse  shipment 
until  satisfactory  explanation  is  furnished  for  the  variation.  Notify  the 
State  Chemist  promptly  of  all  facts  in  the  case. 

If  in  doubt  or  in  need  of  additional  information  write  to  the  State 
Chemist,  zvho  is  always  ready  to  serve  you. 


5 


Weights. — If  short  weight  shipments  are  suspected,  weigh  not  less 
than  20  packages  selected  at  random,  on  a scale  previously  balanced  and 
tested,  and  if  an  average  shortage  of  one  pound  or  more  per  ioo  pounds 
is  found  do  not  remove  balance  of  shipment  from  car,  but  notify  the 
State  Chemist  by  telephone  or  telegraph,  so  that  an  inspector  may  be  sent 
to  make  an  official  inspection. 

Samples. — Since  the  only  samples  analyzed  are  those  obtained  by  the 
official  inspectors  from  feeds  and  fertilizers  offered  or  exposed  for  sale, 
sold  or  distributed  in  the  open  markets  of  the  State,  no  samples  of  any 
kind  should  be  forwarded  to  the  State  Chemist.  In  case  an  inspection  is 
desired,  cooperate  by  observing  procedure  under  “Samples,  Inspection/’ 
page  6. 

Deficiencies  and  Adulteration. — Examine  carefully  the  mailed 
report  of  inspection  of  every  sample  secured  from  feed  in  your  posses- 
sion, and  if  the  report  for  any  sample  shows  it  deficient  or  adulterated 
sufficiently  to  carry  with  it  the  advice  that  the  shipment  should  be  with- 
drawn from  sale,  do  so  promptly  and  report  the  amount  and  date  of 
withdrawal  to  the  State  Chemist,  (see  “Remarks”)  Some  cases  have 
occurred  where  dealers  have  neglected  to  accept  such  advice.  While 
there  may  be  good  grounds  for  claiming  that  the  average  agent  or  dealer 
has  not  the  necessary  equipment  to  determine  whether  guarantees  are 
maintained  until  an  inspection  report  is  received,  after  such  a report 
has  been  made  showing  that  a shipment  does  not  meet  the  requirements 
of  the  law,  there  can  be  no  valid  excuse  for  his  continuing  its  sale,  and  in 
all  such  cases,  prompt  complaint  will  be  filed  with  the  prosecutor  by  the 
State  Chemist. 

CONSUMERS 

Bulletins. — The  reports  of  the  State  Chemist’s  Department  con- 
tain not  only  the  results  of  inspection,  but  incorporate  a table  showing 
feeds  which  manufacturers  certify  will  be  on  sale  the  ensuing  year,  to- 
gether with  other  tables  showing  the  complete  analyses  of  classes  of 
feeding  stuffs  collected  and  coefficients  of  digestion  available  for  feeds 
inspected.  The  following  statements  are  offered  with  a view  to  assisting 
consumers,  agents  and  dealers  in  using  these  reports  to  the  best  advantage : 

Determine  the  character  of  the  feed  you  wish  to  purchase. 

Consult  Purdue  University  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  Bulle- 
tin No.  216,  “Commercial  Feeds  Registered  for  Sale  in  Indiana,  May  i, 
1918”  to  ascertain  manufacturers  who  have  feed  of  the  desired  composi- 
tion and  materials  registered  for  sale. 

Consult  Table  IV  and  compare  the  inspection  records  of  the  manu- 
facturers of  the  particular  feed  or  feeds  selected  as  well  as  general  record 
for  maintaining  guarantees. 

Consult  Table  I for  digestion  coefficients. 

Consult  “Refunds,”  page  20. 

Purchase  feeds  from  manufacturers  whose  records  show  compliance 
with  the  law. 

Make  contracts  and  purchases  on  the  basis  of  official  guarantees  and 
not  from  private  labels  or  advertising  matter. 

If  in  doubt  or  in  need  of  additional  information  write  to  the  State 
Chemist. 

Labels. — The  only  guarantee  recognized  as  legal  in  Indiana  is  that 
on  the  State  Chemist’s  label  (see  reproduction,  page  6),  which  must  be 


6 


attached  to  each  package  for  each  ioo  pounds  or  fraction  of  feed  contained 
therein  and  which  must  accompany  similar  quantities  delivered  in  bulk. 
Refuse  to  accept  any  shipments  unless  official  labels  bearing  the  same 
guarantee  as  contracted  for,  are  furnished. 

If  feed  is  purchased  which  does  not  meet  the  requirements  of  the  law 
or  contract,  notify  the  State  Chemist  by  telegraph  or  telephone  giving 
location  of  shipment,  name  of  the  feed,  the  manufacturer  and  amount. 

Clubs,  Associations,  Etc. — Do  not  accept,  deliver  or  distribute  any 
feeding  stuff  without  State  Chemist’s  labels.  The  person  or  persons  to 
whom  shipments  of  feed  are  consigned  are  responsible  for  such  shipments 
meeting  all  the  requirements  of  the  law. 

Samples,  Inspection. — When  an  inspection  is  desired,  do  not  for- 
ward a sample  but  observe  and  follow  the  request  and  directions  given 
under  “Samples,”  page  7,  and  “Requests  for  Inspection,”  page  8. 

Freight  Bills,  Invoices,  Etc. — In  order  that  records  essential  to 
the  inspection  may  be  available  for  the  inspectors,  save  all  invoices, 
freight  bills  and  letters  relating  to  feed  purchased. 

THE  STATE  CHEMIST’S  LABEL 

The  official  label,  required  by  law,  a reproduction  of  which  follows, 
is  always  printed,  contains  the  information  necessary,  and  the  fac-simile 
signature  of  the  State  Chemist. 


$50  fine  for  using  this  tag  second  time 

No.  9 

Net  Weight  100  Pounds 

JOHN  DOE  & CO., 
of  LaFayette,  Ind., 

Guarantee  this 

DOE’S  MIXED  FEED 

to  contain  not  less  than 
3.5  per  cent,  of  crude  fat, 

14.0  per  cent,  of  crude  protein, 

not  more  than 

10.0  per  cent,  of  crude  fiber, 

and  to  be  compounded  from  the 
following  ingredients: 

Wheat  Bran,  Middlings,  Ground  Wheat 
Screenings  and  Corn  Bran 


Acting  State  Chemist, 
Purdue  University  Agricultural 
Experiment  Station  LaFayette,  Ind. 
Not  good  for  more  than  100  pounds. 


Agents  and  consumers  should  bear  in  mind  that  the  accepted 
guarantee  does  not  necessarily  imply  quality,  and  that  it  is  simply  in- 
tended as  a guide  to  the  purchaser.  Inferior  goods  may  be  legally  sold 


7 


if  correctly  guaranteed.  Close  attention  should  be  given  to  the  ingredi- 
ents contained  in  the  feed,  which  must  be  printed  on  the  labels. 

Distinction  should  be  made  between  the  private  tag  or  label  of  the 
manufacturer,  broker  or  agent  and  the  State  Chemist’s  label ; the  former 
is  optional,  the  latter  necessary.  There  can  be  no  objection  to  the  manu- 
facturers’ use  of  private  labels  so  long  as  the  printed  matter  on  same  con- 
forms to  the  official  State  Chemist’s  label.  False  and  misleading  state- 
ments on  the  private  labels  attached,  leaves  the  State  Chemist  no  option 
but  to  advise  withdrawal  from  sale  of  all  such  wrongly  labeled  feed,  and 
the  violation  will  be  taken  up  under  the  Federal  Food  and  Drugs  Act. 

ADMINISTRATION 

It  is  provided  by  the  Feeding  Stuffs  Control  law  that  it  shall  be  en- 
forced by  the  State  Chemist,  who  is  directly  responsible  to  the  authorities 
of  the  Purdue  University  Agricultural  Experiment  Station. 

The  State  Chemist  is  assisted  in  carrying  out  the  provisions  of  the 
law  by  regularly  appointed  deputies  and  inspectors  who  are  especially 
trained  for  the  work.  The  inspectors  are  on  the  road  every  working  day, 
collecting  samples  of  feeds  and  fertilizers,  which  are  sent  to  the  labora- 
tory where  they  are  analyzed  by  the  deputies. 

Inspections. — It  is  impossible  to  inspect  every  lot  of  feed  distributed 
in  Indiana,  but  it  is  the  aim  of  the  Department  as  far  as  possible  to  make 
two  inspections  of  each  brand  offered  for  sale.  In  cases  where  manufac- 
turers of  brands  have  poor  records  of  inspection,  duplicate  samples  are 
secured  wherever  shipments  are  found. 

All  reasonable  requests  for  inspection  are  given  prompt  attention. 

Agents,  dealers  and  consumers  are  advised  and  requested  to  cooper- 
ate with  the  State  Chemist  by  giving  prompt  notice  of  the  receipt  of  inter- 
state or  other  shipments,  especially  the  former. 

Samples. — Manufacturers,  agents,  dealers  and  consumers  are  re- 
quested not  to  forward  samples  of  feeds,  fertilizers  or  other  materials  to 
this  department  since  to  do  so  is  a useless  expense  as  the  only  samples 
analyzed  are  those  secured  by  the  official  inspectors  from  feeding  stuffs 
or  fertilizers  found  in  the  open  markets  of  the  State. 

If  an  analysis  for  the  purpose  of  making  guarantee  is  necessary,  it 
must  be  secured  from  a commercial  chemist. 

The  rule  that  only  samples  secured  by  the  inspectors  of  the  Depart- 
ment will  be  analyzed  must  be  rigidly  adhered  to  for  the  following  reasons : 

1.  In  order  for  the  analysis  of  a sample  of  feed  to  be  of  value,  the 
sample  must  be  drawn  in  such  a manner  as  to  be  representative  of  the 
entire  shipment.  Such  a representative  sample  cannot  be  secured  by 
taking  a portion  from  one  bag  or  a handful  from  the  top  of  a number  of 
bags  but  must  be  taken  with  a sampler,  which  will  take  a portion  the  en- 
tire length  of  the  bag  or  container. 

2.  Unless  it  can  be  shown  beyond  doubt  that  the  sample  was  drawn 
by  one  especially  trained  for  the  purpose  and  in  such  a way  as  to  be  repre- 
sentative of  the  shipment,  successful  prosecution  of  the  person  or  firm 
making  the  sale,  should  the  sample  fail  to  equal  guarantee  or  be  adul- 
terated, is  impossible. 

3.  The  only  funds  available  for  the  work  of  inspection  are  the  fees 
derived  from  the  sale  of  labels  and  this  amount  is  not  sufficient  nor  is  the 


8 


staff  available  to  permit  of  the  analysis  of  miscellaneous  samples  of  feed- 
ing stuffs  or  more  extensive  duplication  of  samples  of  the  same  brand. 
The  inspection  in  this  state  is  more  general  and  covers  more  territory 
than  in  most  states  having  similar  laws,  and  comparison  between  inspec- 
tion reports,  we  think,  justifies  the  belief  that  on  the  basis  of  tonnage  sold, 
we  are  analyzing  as  many  if  not  more  inspection  samples  than  other  states. 
In  1917  an  inspection  sample  was  secured  for  each  82  tons  of  feed  sold. 

Requests  eor  Inspection. — If  an  inspection  is  desired  write  to  the 
State  Chemist,  to  whom  all  communications  regarding  the  work  of  the 
Department  should  he  addressed , stating  the  amount  of  feed  on  hand, 
name  of  feed  and  official  number  at  top  of  label  with  any  special  reason 
for  desiring  the  inspection.  In  case  the  amount  present  is  sufficient  to 
justify  it  and  a large  number  of  samples  of  the  same  brand  have  not 
already  been  inspected,  an  inspector  will  be  sent  to  secure  an  official 
sample  without  expense  to  those  desiring  the  inspection. 

Feeding  Stuees  in  Quantity. — Purchasers  should  have  available 
for  the  inspector  the  following  information : the  total  number  of  tons  in 
shipment ; number  and  initials  of  car  in  which  shipment  is  received ; num- 
ber and  date  of  waybill ; name  of  railroad  issuing  waybill ; name  of  town 
from  which  shipment  was  made;  name  of  firm  from  which  feed  was  pur- 
chased ; date  received  and  price  per  ton.  This  information  is  especially  im- 
portant when  feed  is  purchased  direct  from  manufacturers  in  other  states. 

Analyses. — Laboratory  numbers  for  identification  of  the  samples 
are  assigned  upon  their  receipt  at  the  laboratory.  The  analysts  are  not  in 
possession  of  facts  as  to  brand,  manufacturer  or  origin  of  samples.  If 
samples  are  found  to  be  deficient  in  crude  fat  or  crude  protein  or  to  con- 
tain an  excess  of  crude  fiber,  at  least  two  analysts  make  independent  de- 
terminations on  separate  portions  of  the  samples,  and  in  case  of  disagree- 
ment, these  results  are  checked  from  a third  portion  of  the  sample  by 
another  chemist. 

All  samples  received  from  the  inspectors  are  examined  microscopic- 
ally and  the  majority  chemically  and  the  results  published,  unless  error 
in  connection  with  the  taking  of  the  same  by  an  employee  of  the  State 
Chemist’s  Department  can  be  shown. 

Reports. — The  results  of  the  chemical  and  microscopical  examina- 
tion of  samples  are  reported  to  the  manufacturer,  agent  and  persons  from 
whom  samples  are  obtained.  In  the  case  of  appreciably  deficient  or  of 
adulterated  samples  the  manufacturer  is  given  10  days’  advance  notice 
in  which  to  file  objections  and  review  the  work  for  which  purpose  a por- 
tion of  the  official  sample  is  furnished  if  requested.  Pending  adjustment 
of  such  cases  and  as  soon  as  the  adulteration  or  deficiency  is  detected, 
the  agent  or  person  offering  the  feeding  stuff  for  sale  is  notified  that  it  is 
not  labeled  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  the  law  and  is  advised 
to  remove  it  from  sale.  Agents  or  persons  so  notified  should  respond 
promptly  to  such  advice  as  failure  to  accept  it  will  necessitate  their  being 
reported  for  wilful  violation  of  the  law. 

No  report  will  be  made  on  samples  secured  from  unlabeled  ship- 
ments but  results  obtained  will  be  published  in  the  annual  commercial 
feeding  stuffs  bulletin. 

Analytical  Methods. — The  methods  of  the  Association  of  Official 
Agricultural  Chemists  are  official  in  the  State  Chemist’s  Department. 


9 


Manufacturers'  Claims  will  be  given  every  consideration  and 
every  effort  will  be  made  to  secure  concordant  results  but  samples  will  not 
be  referred  for  final  settlement  and  only  results  which  can  be  duplicated 
in  the  State  Chemist’s  laboratory  zvill  be  accepted  as  official. 

Weighing  of  Packages. — The  inspection  will  also  include  the  weigh- 
ing of  packages  of  feed  offered  for  sale,  to  prevent  the  practice  of  giving 
short  weights  which  has  been  prevalent  in  some  states. 

Official  Duties. — The  official  duties  of  the  State  Chemist  are  re- 
stricted to  the  inspection  of  fertilizers  and  feeding  stuffs  and  the  settle- 
ment of  disputes  between  coal  oil  dealers  and  inspectors.  The  official 
work  required  takes  the  entire  time  of  the  staff  of  the  Department  and 
no  miscellaneous  work  either  gratis  or  for  pay  can  be  undertaken.  An- 
alyses of  fertilizers  and  feeding  stuffs  must  be  restricted  to  samples  se- 
cured by  our  regular  inspectors.  Analyses  of  water,  soils,  rocks  or  simi- 
lar materials  are  not  made  by  this  department. 

EXPLANATION  OF  TERMS 

Concentrated  feeding  stuffs  as  defined  by  the  Indiana  Feeding  Stuffs 
Control  law  is  a term  used  to  distinguish  between  feeding  stuffs  com- 
posed of  grains,  seeds  or  their  by-products,  and  compounded  feeds  from 
such  products  as  hay,  straw  or  corn  stover. 

Concentrates 1 are  feed  of  condensed  nature,  which  are  low  in  fiber 
and  hence  furnish  a large  amount  of  digestible  matter. 

Roughagesx  are  the  coarser  feeding  stuffs  which  are  high  in  fiber  and 
supply  a lower  percentage  of  digestible  matter. 

Nutrient  is  a term  applied  to  any  food  constituent  or  group  of  similar 
food  constituents  that  may  aid  in  the  support  of  animal  life. 

Moisture  is  the  varying  quantity  of  water  occurring  in  feeding  stuffs 
which  can  be  driven  off  by  heat  at  the  temperature  of  boiling  water. 

Dry  matter  is  the  portion  of  feeding  stuff  which  remains  after  the 
moisture  is  driven  off. 

Crude  fat  consists  of  the  fats,  oils  and  small  amounts  of  waxes, 
resins,  coloring  matter  and  similar  substances,  dissolved  from  feeding 
stuffs  by  ether. 

Crude  Protein  is  the  term  applied  to  the  nitrogenous  constituents  of 
a feeding  stuff.  It  is  obtained  by  multiplying  the  total  nitrogen  by  6.25. 

Crude  fiber  is  the  woody  portion  of  a feeding  stuff,  for  the  most  part 
cellulose,  and  is  insoluble  in  dilute  acids  and  alkalis.  Crude  fiber  when 
present  in  considerable  quantities  exerts  a retarding  influence  on  the 
digestion  of  nutrients  present. 

Crude  ash,  the  mineral  matter  of  plants,  is  the  residue  left  after  burn- 
ing a feeding  stuff  at  low  redness.  It  consists  chiefly  of  the  phosphates, 
sulfates,  chlorides  and  carbonates  of  sodium,  potassium,  calcium  and 
magnesium. 

Nitrogen  free  extract  consists  of  sugars,  starches,  pentoses,  non- 
nitrogenous  organic  acids,  etc.,  and  is  determined  by  subtracting  the  sum 
of  moisture,  crude  fat,  crude  protein,  crude  fiber  and  crude  ash  from  100. 

Carbohydrates  is  the  collective  term  applied  to  crude  fiber  and  nitro- 
gen free  extract. 


1 Feeds  and  Feeding.  Henry  and  Morrison 


10 


Filler  is  the  term  used  to  designate  roughages  which  are  often  used 
as  diluents  of  concentrates  in  the  compounding  of  feeds.  Fillers  may  be 
added  as  a constituent  to  make  bulk  but  are  often  added  to  concentrates 
to  reduce  them  to  such  a grade,  that  they  may  be  sold  at  popular  prices. 
Some  of  the  more  common  fillers  are  cottonseed  hulls,  peanut  hulls,  oat 
hulls,  cob  meal,  oat  clippings,  etc.  The  majority  of  fillers  contain  relatively 
small  amounts  of  crude  fat  and  crude  protein  and  large  amounts  of  crude 
fiber.  Consumers  should  consider  carefully  before  purchasing  compound- 
ed feeds  of  high  filler  content  as  indicated  by  high  fiber  guarantees. 

DIGESTIBLE  NUTRIENTS  IN  FEEDING  STUFFS 

There  has  been  a constant  and  growing  demand  by  the  feeders  who 
wish  to  place  their  feeding  operations  on  the  scientific  basis  of  balanced 
rations  for  the  digestible  nutrients,  for  example,  digestible  protein,  carbo- 
hydrates, efc.,  that  are  to  be  found  in  the  feeding  stuffs  on  the  markets 
of  Indiana.  Complying  with  this  demand,  terms  used  in  the  scientific 
compounding  of  rations  together  with  Table  I which  contains  a compila- 
tion of  digestion  coefficients  are  here  presented. 

A balanced  ration 1 is  the  feed  or  combination  of  feeds  furnishing  the 
several  nutrients — crude  protein,  carbohydrates,  and  fat — in  such  propor- 
tion and  amount  as  will  properly  and  without  excess  of  any  nutrients 
nourish  a given  animal  for  24  hours. 

Digestion  coefficient  is  the  term  used  to  designate  that  portion  or 
percentage  of  a nutrient  that  is  digestible.  These  coefficients  cannot  be 
taken  as  absolute  because  they  vary  with  the  individual  animal  but  being 
secured  as  the  result  of  carefully  conducted  experiments,  they  will  closely 
approximate  the  percentage  of  nutrients  in  feeding  stuff  available  for  the 
animal’s  use. 

Nutritive  ratio  is  a term  used  to  designate  the  ratio  between  the 
digestible  crude  protein  and  the  combined  digestible  carbohydrates  and 
crude  fat.  The  nutritive  ratio  of  a feeding  stuff  is  ascertained  by  divid- 
ing the  amount  of  digestible  carbohydrates  + 2.25  x the  digestible  fat  by 
the  amount  of  digestible  protein.  The  amount  of  digestible  fat  is  multi- 
plied by  2.25  to  reduce  it  to  the  same  energy  basis  as  the  carbohydrates, 
it  being  2.25  times  more  valuable  for  the  production  of  energy. 

Example. — To  determine  the  nutritive  ratio  of  the  average  wheat  bran 
containing  2.6  per  cent,  digestible  fat;  12.2  per  cent,  digestible  protein 
and  38.9  per  cent,  digestible  carbohydrates. 

2.6  fat  x 2.25  ==  5.85  energy  value  of  fat  in  terms  of  carbohydrates 

5.85  + 38.9  = 44.75  energy  value  of  fat  and  carbohydrates 
44.75 -f- 12.2  = 3.67 

1 13.67  = nutritive  ratio  of  the  wheat  bran 


1 Feeds  and  Feeding.  Henry  and  Morrison 


TABLE  I. — Average  Digestion  Coefficients  of  Feeding  Stuffs  i 


Feeding  stuffs 

Crude 

protein 

Per  i 

Crude 

fat 

cent. 

Crude 

fiber 

Nitro- 
gen free 
extract 

Grains,  seeds,  their  parts  and  factory  by-products 

Barley  2 __  . __  _.  

78 

78 

56 

92 

Brewers’  dried  grains ___  

81 

89 

49 

57 

Buckwheat 2 

75 

100 

24 

76 

Buckwheat  bran  2 ___  

4 n 

56 

39 

56 

Buckwheat  middlings  

85 

89 

17 

83 

Cocoanut  meal 9 __  ___  

78 

97 

88 

68 

Corn  (Dent)  

76 

86 

58 

93 

Corn  meal  2 

74 

93 

57 

94 

Corn  bran . _ 

54 

77 

'59 

77 

Corn  and  cob  meal  _ . 

52 

84 

45 

88 

Corn  cob  meal  

17 

60 

66 

60 

Corn  germ  meal  2 

78 

96 

75 

78 

Cottonseed  

68 

87 

76 

50 

Cottonseed  meal  . . - ..  

84 

94 

35 

78 

Cottonseed  meal  and  hulls  (cottonseed  feed)2__  

51 

86 

46 

56 

Cottonseed  hulls  ..  — 

6 

79 

47 

34 

Cowpea  ineal  2 

82 

74 

64 

98 

64 

84 

91 

Distillers’  dried  grains  (chiefly  corn)  

73 

95 

95 

81 

Distillers’  dried  grains  (chiefly  rye)  

'59 

84 

67 

Emmer  2 __  

80 

88 

64 

89 

91 

86 

61 

55 

Flax  plant  by-product  (pods,  shives,  seeds)3 

68.4 

74.9 

48.3 

43.3 

Flax  shives  6 

81 

92.7 

25.8 

43.5 

Gluten  feed _ 

85 

83 

.76 

89 

Gluten  meal 

68 

98 

88 

Grain  screenings  (ground)3  ._  

65.5 

63.6 

17.5 

80.6 

Grain  screenings  6 

71.8 

88.5 

73.2 

Hominy  feed  __ 

65 

92 

67 

89 

Kafir  corn 

46 

46 

60 

Linseed  meal  (old  process)  

89 

89 

57 

78 

Linseed  meal  (new  process)  

84 

89 

74 

80 

Malt  sprouts  2 

77 

85 

80 

87 

Oats  - - __  _ 

77 

89 

31 

77 

Oat  middlings  _ - 

81 

94 

49 

96 

Oatmeal  by-products  

65 

90 

32 

42 

Oat  hulls 3 

50.1 

76.7 

59.9 

52.7 

Palm  kernel  oil  meal  9 

95 

95 

94 

82 

Peanut  cake  from  meats  2 

90 

90 

9 

84 

Peanut  cake,  hulls  and  meats  2 __ 

71 

90 

12 

49 

Rice  2 . 

86 

90 

100 

Rice  bran  

64 

72 

21 

78 

Rice  hulls  2 

10 

67 

35 

Rice  meal  2 

62 

91 

4 

92 

Rice  polish  

67 

82 

26 

91 

Rye  5 _ _ _ 

79.4 

74.5 

79.2 

70.1 

Rye  meal  . _ 

84 

64 

92 

Rye  mixed  feed  (bran  and  middlings)2 

80 

90 

88 

Soybean  meal  2 . ... ... 

84 

82 

81 

73 

Soybean  oil  meal  2 

92 

68 

99 

100 

Wheat  bran  (spring) 

76 

68 

44 

74 

Wheat  bran  (winter) 

77 

64 

27 

65 

Wheat  chaff  2 

26 

43 

39 

33 

Wheat  middlings  (flour)  _ 

88 

86 

36 

88 

Wheat  middlings  (standard) 

77 

88 

30 

78 

Wheat  bran  and  middlings  (shipstuff)  

76 

87 

62 

77 

Roughage 

Corn  fodder  (mature)  

45 

70 

68 

73 

Corn  stover _ 

86 

67 

64 

59 

Corn  silage  (mature)  

50 

82 

64 

71 

Barley  straw  ...  _ 

20 

42 

56 

54 

Oat  6traw  

28 

39 

60 

51 

Pea  vine  straw  ._  ... 

60 

46 

52 

64 

Rye  straw  2 

23 

36 

55 

Soy  bean  vine  straw  2 

'50 

60 

38 

66 

Wheat  straw  2 _ 

28 

31 

50 

37 

Alfalfa  hay  _ ... ... 

72 

43 

47 

72 

Alsike  clover  hay • 

66 

38 

50 

66 

Cow  pea  hay 

65 

50- 

43 

71 

12 


TABLE  I. — Average  Digestion  Coefficients  of  Feeding  Stuffs  (continued) 


Per  cent. 

Feeding  stuffs 

Crude 

protein 

Crude 

fat 

Crude 

fiber 

Nitro- 
gen free 
extract 

('Trimson  nlnvpr  hay 

69 

44 

45 

62 

R.pd  rlnypr  hay 

58 

'55 

54 

64 

Soy  bean  hay 

71 

29 

61 

Timothy  hay  - _ _ 

48 

50 

50 

62 

Miscellaneous 

Dried  blood  __  - , 

84 

Flav  plant  hy-prodnet,  and  mnlassps  3 

62.5 

59.7 

31.8 

62.6 

Molasses,  beet 7 

52 

91 

Molasses  can*1  7 

86 

Molasses  fped  (SiiprpiiPj  Hnlst.pin,  Maenn) 

63 

88 

52 

80 

Meat  scraps  

98 

Skim  milk* 1  2 3 _ _ — 

94 

98 

98 

Tankage  8 _ 

71 

100 

100 

1 Reports  Massachusetts  Agricultural  Experiment  Station.  “Experiments  with  Rum- 

inants,” Lindsay’s  compilation 

2 “Feeds  and  Feeding.”  Henry  and  Morrison 

3 Maryland  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  Bulletin  No.  168.  Patterson  and  White 

4 German  experiments  give  coefficient  as  26 

6 Office  of  Experiment  Stations,  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture,  Bulletin  No.  77 
0 Massachusetts  Agricultural  Experiment  Station,  Bulletin  No.  158 

7 Massachusetts  Agricultural  Experiment  Station,  Bulletin  No.  118 

8 “Feeds  and  Feeding.”  Experiments  with  swine.  Henry  and  Morrison 

9 “Scientific  Feeding  of  Farm  Animals.”  Kellner 


DEFINITIONS  AND  DESCRIPTIONS  OF  FEEDING  STUFFS 

In  accepting  certificates  for  registration  of  feeding  stuffs  to  be  sold 
in  Indiana  the  definitions  adopted  by  the  Association  of  Feed  Control 
Officials  are  followed  closely.  It  is  not  thought  necessary  to  reprint  all 
the  definitions  of  feeding  stuffs  as  these  have  appeared  each  year  in  the 
commercial  feeding  stuffs  bulletin.  A few  copies  of  Bulletins  Nos.  190 
and  209  containing  complete  definitions,  are  still  available  and  will  be 
sent  free  upon  request. 

The  State  Chemist  deems  it  advisable  to  again  publish  the  following 
definitions : 

1.  Those  which  appear  to  be  misunderstood  by  the  Indiana  trade. 

2.  Tentative  definitions  adopted  tentatively  by  the  Association  of 
Feed  Control  Officials  at  the  1917  annual  meeting.  These  definitions -are 
marked  with  an  asterisk  (*).  Final  action  will  be  taken  at  the  next  an- 
nual meeting  in  November,  1918,  regarding  these  definitions. 

3.  When  definitions  are  not  available  from  the  Association  of  Feed 
Control  Officials  the  materials  are  defined  in  accordance  with  the  best  in- 
formation obtainable  by  the  State  Chemist’s  Department.  Definitions  not 
from  the  A.  F.  C.  O.  are  marked  with  a double  asterisk  (**). 

Corn  germ  meal  is  a product  in  the  manufacture  of  starch,  glucose 
and  other  corn  products  and  is  the  germ  layer  from  which  a part  of  the 
corn  oil  has  been  extracted. 

Owing  to  the  scarcity  of  fats  due  to  the  world  war,  corn  germ  meals 
are  taking  a prominent  place  among  feeding  stuffs.  The  oil  obtained  is 
used  for  edible  purposes,  manufacture  of  soaps,  etc.  According  to  esti- 
mations made  from  data  available,  about  26,687  tons  of  corn  germ  meal 
were  sold  in  Indiana  during  1917  as  against  11,375  tons  in  1916. 


i3 


It  is  of  interest  to  note  that  there  are  two  distinct  classes  of  corn 
germ  meals. 

One  is  a by-product  in  the  manufacture  of  hominy  and  products  de- 
manding similar  processes,  and  will  carry  from  6.0  to  8.0  per  cent,  crude 
fat  and  from  17  to  20  per  cent,  crude  protein. 

The  other  is  a by-product  in  the  manufacture  of  starch,  glucose,  etc., 
and  will  carry  7.0  to  12  per  cent,  crude  fat  and  18  to  24  per  cent,  crude 
protein. 

The  manufacturers  of  corn  germ  meal  may  state  if  desired,  the 
source  of  this  by-product  when  applying  for  registration  and  the  same 
will  appear  on  the  labels  furnished. 

*Corn  feed  meal  is  the  by-product  obtained  in  the  manufacture  of 
cracked  corn,  with  or  without  aspiration  products  added  to  the  siftings, 
and  is  the  by-product  obtained  in  the  manufacture  of  table  meal  from 
the  whole  grain  by  the  non-degerminating  process. 

*Hominy  feed,  hominy  meal  or  hominy  chop  is  a kiln-dried  mixture 
of  the  mill  run  bran  coating,  the  mill  run  germ,  with  or  without  a partial  \ 
extraction  of  the  oil  and  a part  of  the  starchy  portion  of  the  white  corn 
kernel  obtained  in  the  manufacture  of  hominy,  hominy  grits  and  corn 
meal  by  the  degerminating  process. 

*Yellow  hominy  feed,  yellow  hominy  meal  or  yellow  hominy  chop  is  a 
kiln-dried  mixture  of  the  mill  run  bran  coating,  the  mill  run  germ,  with 
or  without  a partial  extraction  of  the  oil  and  a part  of  the  starchy  por- 
tion of  the  yellow  corn  kernel  obtained  in  the  manufacture  of  yellow 
hominy  grits  and  yellow  corn  meal  by  the  degerminating  process. 

**Corn  mill  feed  is  all  of  the  mill  run  by-product  produced  in  the 
manufacture  of  corn  meal  or  corn  flour  from  cleaned  shelled  corn  and 
consists  of  corn  bran,  corn  germ  and  some  meal. 

Corn  feed  meal  and  corn  bran  are  confused  by  the  trade  in  Indiana. 
From  the  definitions  given  above  and  from  general  information  available 
regarding  the  analysis  of  different  parts  of  the  corn  kernel,  the  real 
corn  bran  should  contain  less  crude  fat  and  more  crude  fibre  than  corn 
feed  meal.  A comparison  of  the  1917  corn  bran  and  corn  feed  meal 
samples  analyzed  shows  that  21  samples  of  material  registered  as  corn 
bran  in  1917  averaged  7.1  per  cent,  crude  fat  and  10.3  per  cent,  crude 
protein,  while  46  samples  registered  as  corn  feed  meal  secured  and  an- 
alyzed during  the  same  period,  averaged  4.8  per  cent,  crude  fat  and  9.5 
per  cent,  crude  protein.  This  shows  conclusively  that  many  corn  bran 
registrations  are  in  fact  corn  mill  feed  and  manufacturers  will  be  asked  by 
the  State  Chemist  to  properly  re-register  these  brands  under  appropriate 
names. 

If  corn  bran  is  cleanly  separated  and  contains  no  appreciable 
amounts  of  corn  germ  or  corn  feed  meal  it  should  analyze  from  2.0  to 
2.5  per  cent,  crude  fat,  7.0  to  9.0  per  cent,  crude  protein  and  contain  not 
more  than  10  per  cent,  crude  fiber.  Corn  feed  meal,  siftings  from 
cracked  corn,  which  does  not  contain  excessive  amounts  of  corn  bran  will 
analyze  between  4.0  and  5.0  per  cent,  crude  fat,  8.0  and  9.5  per  cent, 
crude  protein  and  should  contain  less  than  6.0  per  cent,  crude  fiber. 

Manufacturers’  attention  is  also  called  to  the  definition  of  corn  mill 
feed  accepted  by  the  State  Chemist.  In  the  manufacture  of  corn  meal  or 
corn  flour,  provided  no  further  separation  of  the  corn  by-product  is  made 


14 


beyond  the  taking  out  of  the  corn  meal  or  corn  flour,  the  term  corn  mill 
feed  properly  covers  this  material  which  should  analyze  very  similar  to 
hominy  feed  of  previous  years. 

The  trade  in  Indiana  is  confronted  at  this  time  with  a serious  change 
in  hominy  feed,  meal  or  chop.  At  a meeting  of  the  Association  of  Feed 
Control  Officials  held  at  Richmond,  Virginia,  in  November,  1917,  tentative 
definitions  were  made,  which  will  allow  most  of  the  product  formerly 
sold  as  corn  feed  meal  to  be  hereafter  branded  and  sold  as  hominy  feed, 
meal  or  chop.  These  hominy  feed  definitions  refer  to  both  white  and 
yellow  corn. 

At  this  same  meeting,  a motion  made  by  the  Acting  State  Chemist  of 
Indiana  to  adopt  a standard  percentage  of  crude  fat,  protein  and  fibre  for 
materials  which  could  be  classed  under  this  definition,  was  defeated  The 
Acting  State  Chemist  has  hesitated  to  adopt  this  definition  as  many  corn 
feed  meals  containing  less  crude  fat  and  crude  protein  than  is  contained 
in  hominy  feed,  could  under  this  ruling  be  sold  as  hominy  feed.  Tn  order, 
however,  to  cooperate  to  the  best  advantage  with  other  state  officials 
and  also  with  manufacturers  engaged  in  interstate  shipments  of  hominy 
feed,  the  State  Chemist  may  accept  the  new  definition  of  hominy  feed, 
meal  or  chop  after  January  1,  1919,  provided  these  definitions  are  made 
final  at  the  next  annual  meeting  of  the  Association  of  Feed  Control 
Officials. 

Agents  and  consumers  who  formerly  purchased  hominy  feed  mostly 
on  the  brand  name,  paying  little  attention  to  the  guarantee,  should  note 
that  from  best  information  available,  the  40,000  tons  of  hominy  feed 
sold  in  the  State  in  1917,  averaged  8.2  pei4  cent,  crude  fat  and  11.2  per 
cent,  crude  protein,  while  during  the  same  period,  the  3,281  tons  of  corn 
feed  meal  averaged  4.8  per  cent,  crude  fat  and  9.5  per  cent,  crude  protein. 
It  certainly  appears  advisable  that  after  January  1,  1919,  strict  attention 
should  be  given  to  the  guaranteed  percentages  of  crude  fat,  crude  protein 
and  crude  fiber  on  the  hominy  meal,  feed  or  chop. 

“E.  SPECIAL  REGULATIONS  APPLYING  TO  DEALERS  IN 
HOMINY  FEED1 

Rule  1.  Specifications  for  hominy  feed. — On  and  after  Aug.  1,  1918, 
the  licensee  shall  not  knowingly  quote,  sell,  or  label  products  of  corn 
under  the  following  designations  unless  they  conform  to  the  following 
specifications.  In  cases  where  the  licensee  after  an  inspection  of  the 
goods  has  no  reason  to  suspect  a failure  to  conform  to  the  specifications, 
he  shall  not  be  held  to  violate  this  rule  if  he  quotes  or  sells  products  under 
the  designation  used  by  the  miller  selling  to  him. 

Hominy  feed,  hominy  meal,  or  hominy  chop. — Shall  be  a kiln-dried 
mixture  of  the  mill  run  bran  coating,  the  mill  run  germ,  with  or  without 
a partial  extraction  of  the  oil  and  a part  of  the  starchy  portion  of  the 
corn  kernel  obtained  in  the  manufacture  of  hominy,  hominy  grits,  and 
corn  meal  by  the  degerminating  process  from  clean,  sound  white  corn, 
shall  contain  not  to  exceed  14  per  cent,  moisture,  not  to  exceed  7 per  cent. 


1 This  ruling  settles  the  hominy  controversy 


15 


fiber,  not  less  than  io  per  cent,  protein,  not  less  than  5 per  cent,  fat,  and 
shall  have  a texture  fine  enough  to  sift  through  No.  12  wire  bolting  cloth. 

Yellow  hominy  feed,  yellow  hominy  meal,  or  yellow  hominy  chop 
shall  conform  to  the  specifications  for  hominy  meal,  hominy  flour,  or 
hominy  chop  in  all  respects  except  that  it  shall  be  made  from  clean  sound 
yellow  corn  insead  of  white  corn. 

Herbert  Hoover, 

July  14,  1918.  United  States  Food  Administrator.” 

**Barley  Mixed  Feed  with  Ground  Barley  Screenings  with  Ingredients 
stated  as  barley  hulls,  barley  bran,  barley  middlings  and  ground  barley 
screenings. — In  the  milling  of  barley  flour  for  human  consumption,  in 
mills  inspected  by  representatives  of  the  State  Chemist’s  Department, 
the  barley  screenings  are  removed  at  the  start  of  the  process,  the  cleaned 
barley  being  then  run  through  the  ordinary  wheat  flour  mill  or  rye  flour 
mill  and  the  barley  flour  taken  out.  The  product  remaining,  namely 
barley  hulls,  bran  and  middlings  is  mixed  with  the  ground  barley  screen- 
ings originally  taken  out.  The  resultant  by-product  is  sold  in  Indiana 
under  above  brand  name  and  with  ingredients  given  as  barley  hulls,  bran, 
middlings  and  ground  barley  screenings. 

**Barley  Mill  Feed  with  Ground  Barley  Screenings. — This  term  is 
similar  to  barley  mixed  feed  with  ground  barley  screenings  and  is  option- 
al with  the  manufacturer.  ' 

In  general,  materials  of  this  nature  are  sold  in  Indiana  under  guar- 
antees of  2.0  to  3.0  per  cent,  of  crude  fat;  8.0  to  10  per  cent,  of  crude 
protein,  and  not  to  contain  over  18  to  25  per  cent,  of  crude  fiber. 

VELVET  BEAN  PRODUCTS  ! 

**Velvet  bean  feed  is  the  dried  ground  velvet  beans  and  pods. 

** Velvet  bean  meal  is  the  dried  ground  velvet  bean  and  cannot  con- 
tain the  ground  pods. 

Several  brands  of  velvet  bean  feed  are  now  registered  with  the 
State  Chemist’s  Department  and  appear  in  this  bulletin  in  Table  IV.  In 
general,  this  product  is  guaranteed  to  contain  4.0  per  cent,  crude  fat,  16  to 
18  per  cent,  crude  protein  and  15  to  20  per  cent,  crude  fiber. 

Velvet  bean  meal  is  not  offered  for  sale  in  Indiana  at  this  time. 

**Delinted  cottonseed  hulls  is  the  product  resulting  from  the  ehtire 
removal  of  all  particles  of  lint  from  the  outer  portion  of  the  cottonseed 
hulls.  When  added  to  cottonseed  meal  or  mixed  with  other  feeds,  the 
term  ground  or  unground  delinted  cottonseed  hulls  must  be  listed  as  an 
ingredient. 

Corn  cob  meal,  peanut  hull  meal  and  delinted  cottonseed  hulls  have 
a very  high  percentage  of  crude  fiber  and  contain  somewhat  less  digest- 
ible nutrients  than  oat  straw,  and  only  a very  great  scarcity  of  home 
grown  roughage  can  ever  justify  their  purchase  in  Indiana. 

Table  II  contains  the  average  percentage  of  crude  fat  and  crude 
protein  of  the  1917  inspection  samples,  collected  and  arranged  in  29 
general  types. 


The  amounts  of  crude  fat  and  crude  protein  obtained  for  $1.00  in 
each  class  of  feed  is  also  shown  in  Table  II.  In  connection  with  the 
latter  information,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  pounds  of  total  not  digest- 
ible feeding  ingredients  are  given  and  that  in  using  the  data  in  Table  II 
in  purchasing  feeding  stuffs,  the  digestibility  and  palatability  of  the 
materials  used,  as  well  as  the  home  grown  feeding  stuff  available  for  use 
in  the  ration,  must  receive  careful  consideration.  The  consumer  should 
also  consider  the  percentage  of  crude  fiber  which  when  present  in  consid- 
erable quantities  exerts  a retarding  influence  on  the  digestion  of  nutri- 
ents present.  The  numerous  feeding  investigations  carried  on  by  the 
experiment  stations  show  that  many  feeds  containing  similar  amounts  of 
digestible  crude  fat  and  crude  protein  often  have  very  different  feeding 
values. 

The  cost  of  many  feeds  doubled  in  1917  while  the  costs  of  others 
have  made  only  a slight  advance  and  when  the  consumer  in  compounding 
a ration  has  a choice  between  several  feeds  which  are  equally  good  as 
regards  feeding  value  and  adaptability  to  the  animal,  he  can  use  Table  II 
to  advantage,  more  especially  if  he  will  compare  similar  feeds  by  the 
method  given  below,  which  was  the  method  followed  in  ascertaining  the 
pounds  of  crude  fat  and  crude  protein  obtained  for  $1.00. 

Example. — Cottonseed  meal  containing  7.9  per  cent,  of  crude  fat 
and  38.9  per  cent,  of  crude  protein  is  offered  at  $47.35  a ton  while  cot- 
tonseed feed  containing  4.9  per  cent,  crude  fat  and  27.6  per  cent,  crude 
protein  can  be  bought  for  $40.03  a ton. 

Cottonseed  meal,  $47.35  a ton  -f-  20  ==  $2.37  per  100  pounds. 

7.9  pounds  crude  fat  in  100  pounds  ~~  2.37  = 3.3  pounds  crude  fat 
for  $1.00. 

38.9  pounds  crude  protein  in  100  pounds  -4-  2.37  = 16.4  pounds 
crude  protein  for  $1.00. 

Cottonseed  feed,  $40.03  a ton  -4-  20  — = $2.00  per  100  pounds. 

4.9  pounds  crude  fat  in  100  pounds  -4-  2.00  — 2.5  pounds  crude  fat 
for  $1.00. 

27.6  per  cent,  crude  protein  in  100  pounds  -4-  2.00  = 13.8  pounds 
crude  protein  for  $1.00. 

Thus  in  buying  cottonseed  meal  at  $47.35  a ton,  one  actually  pur- 
chases 3.3  pounds  of  crude  fat  and  16.4  pounds  of  crude  protein  for 
$1.00.  The  same  dollar  would  buy  only  2.5  pounds  of  crude  fat  and  13.8 
pounds  of  crude  protein  if  cottonseed  feed  were  bought  at  *the  rate  of 
$40.03  a ton.  In  addition,  the  cottonseed  meal  would  not  contain  over 
10  per  cent,  of  crude  fiber  while  the  cottonseed  feed  would  contain  over 
20  per  cent,  of  crude  fiber  due  to  the  excess  cottonseed  hulls,  which  is 
not  desirable. 

Table  I giving  average  digestion  coefficients  of  feeding  stuffs 
found  on  page  11  can  at  this  time  be  profitably  used.  To  illustrate,  the 
13.8  pounds  of  crude  protein  in  cottonseed  feed  purchased  for  $1.00  mul- 
tiplied by  51,  gives  seven  pounds  of  digestible  crude  protein.  The  16.4 
pounds  of  crude  protein  in  cottonseed  meal  purchased  for  $1.00,  multi- 
plied by  84  gives  13.8  pounds  of  digestible  crude  protein  or  nearly  twice 
the  amount  of  digestible  crude  protein  that  could  be  purchased  in  1917 
in  cottonseed  meal  than  could  be  obtained  in  cottonseed  feed. 


TABLE  II. — Average  Analyses  of  Twenty-nine  Classes  of  Feeding  Stuffs  and 
Pounds  of  Crude  Fat  and  Crude  Protein  Obtainable  for  $1.00 


Kind  of  feed 

Number 

samples 

analyzed 

Water, 

per  cent. 

Crude  fat, 

per  cent. 

Crude  protein, 

per  cent. 

Aveage  retail 

price  per  ton, 

dollars 

Range  in 

retail  price 

per  ton, 

dollars 

Pounds 
for  one 
dollar 

Crude 

fat 

Crude 

protein 

Mill  by-products — wheat  bran,  mid- 

dlings,  rye  feeds,  red  dog.  etc., 

with  and  without  screenings 

957 

9.8 

4.1 

14.9 

43.73 

26—80 

1.9 

6.8 

Poultry  feed— without  grit  ___  

139 

10.6 

3.6 

10.9 

73.84 

48—100 

1.0 

3.0 

with  grit  __ 

108 

9.7 

3.3 

10.3 

75.31 

40—100 

0.9 

2.7 

poultry  mash  __  

43 

8.9 

4.3 

16.9 

64.97 

44.80 — 100 

1.3 

5.2 

Proprietary  feeds— containing  mo- 

lasses  

258 

12.1 

3.4 

13.8 

47.63 

28—70 

1.4 

5.8 

without  molasses. 

126 

8.9 

5.0 

17.7 

52.28 

2l>—100 

1.9 

6.8 

Hominy  feed 

60 

8.4 

8.2 

11.2 

56.66 

42 — 77 

2.9 

4 0 

Corn  bran _ 

21 

9.7 

7.1 

10.3 

30.43 

20—45 

4T 

6.S 

Corn  feed  meal  

46 

10.3 

4.8 

9.5 

59.42 

40 — 76 

1.6 

3.2 

Corn  germ  meal 

76 

6.6 

9.1 

21.1 

55.00 

38—72 

3.3 

7.7 

Corn  gluten  feed . _ 

17 

8.7 

4.1 

26.1 

51.81 

42 — 65 

1.6 

10.1 

Corn  gluten  meal 

5 

8.2 

0.8 

43.1 

56.40 

52—60 

0.3 

15.3 

Miscellaneous  chops  

188 

10.0 

4.2 

10.5 

53.85 

26 — 90 

1.6 

3.9 

Corn  and  oats  chop . 

38 

10.1 

4.3 

10.0 

56.89 

38—75 

1.5 

3.5 

Wheat  middlings  and  palm  oil—  .. 

28 

5.4 

8.6 

17.0 

47.58 

30.80*— 60 

3.6 

7.1 

Alfalfa  meal  

16 

8.8 

1.8 

13.0 

40.98 

33. — 70 

0.9 

6.4 

Animal  by-products  

280 

12.2 

6.5 

57.5 

70.97 

20 — 160 

1.6 

14.4 

Cottonseed  meal 

312 

6.8 

7.9 

38.9 

47.35 

36—62 

3.3 

16.5 

Cottonseed  feed 

20 

7.4 

4.9 

27.6 

40.08 

29.50 — 58 

2.5 

13.8 

Cold  pressed  cottonseed 

3 

6.7 

10.1 

27.5 

38.90 

38.60—39.20 

5.2 

14.2 

Linseed  meals ...  

45 

8.3 

7.0 

35.1 

58.51 

45.20—70 

2.5 

12.4 

Unscreened  flaxseed  oil  feed  __  

2 

7.9 

9.2 

2,6.2 

55.00 

60* — 60 

3.3 

9.5 

Distillers’  dried  grains  __  ....  

28 

6.7 

10.3 

32.1 

43.28 

35—55 

4.8 

14.8 

Brewers’  dried  grains 

13 

6.1 

6.9 

28.7 

41.20 

27 — 52 

3.3 

13.9 

Dried  yeast  grains _ 

1 

7.9 

6.7 

19.2 

31.00 

4.3 

12.3 

Dried  beet  pulp 

2 

7.3 

0.9 

10.2 

40.00 

34—46 

0.5 

5.1 

Calf  meals 

10 

8.9 

5.4 

24.4 

114.09 

55 . 80 — 320 

0.9 

4.3 

Velvet  bean  feeds  

7 

9.0 

4.5 

18.9 

43.00 

35—47 

2.1 

8.8 

Dried  cnenannt  meats 

2 

8.6 

7.6 

21.6 

55.00 

2.8 

7.9 

Condiment al  stock  feeds  

24 

14.7 

2.1 

7.2 

284.07 

35.25—1000 

0.1 

5.1 

Condimental  poultry  feeds  __  

16 

7.4 

4.2 

13.8 

298.61 

132— 566.66 

0.3 

0.9 

Miscellaneous— corn  germ  meal  and 

corn  distillers  grains  _ 

1 

5.8 

j 9.7 

24.1 

44.00 

4.4 

10.9 

ESTIMATED  SALES  1917  COMPARED  WITH  THOSE  OF  1916  AND  1915 

An  annual  report  of  sales  is  required  of  each  person  or  firm  register- 
ing brands  of  feeding  stuff,  but  owing  to  frequent  changes  of  ownership 
and  inaccurate  records  kept  by  many  dealers,  it  is  impossible  to  secure 
data  showing  the  exact  amount  of  feed  sold  annually. 

Based  on  sale  of  labels,  reports  from  manufacturers,  data  collected 
by  inspectors  of  the  Department  and  other  available  information,  the 
estimated  sales  are  379,152  tons  in  1917  as  against  317,664  tons  in  1916, 
270, 339  tons  in  1915  and  271,751  tons  in  1914.  The  estimated  retail 
value  of  feeds  sold  in  1917  is  $21,700,101  being  twice  the  value  of  feed 
sold  in  1916. 

Table  III  shows  the  estimated  sales  for  different  classes  of  feed  for 
i9i5j  i9i6  and  1917  together  with  estimated  expenditures  for  1916  and 

1917. 


i8 


TABLE  III 


Kind  of  feed 

Estimated  tons 

Estimated  retail 
value,  dollars 

1916 

1916 

1917 

1916 

1917 

Mill  by-products— wheat  bran,  middlings,  rye 

feeds,  red  dog,  etc.,  with  and  without 

screenings 

119,408 

146,086 

137,750 

4,272,972 

6,023,807 

Poultry  feed— without  grit 

18,281 

20,519 

19,004 

893,594 

1,409,900 

with  grit  

15,718 

14,688 

14,125 

616,141 

1,063,758 

poultry  mash 

1,344 

1,688 

2,937 

78,047 

190,816 

Proprietary  feeds — containing  molasses 

34,066 

80,220 

33,687 

968,111 

1,604,511 

without  molasses 

7,780 

9,086 

22,687 

302,739 

1,186,076 

Hominy  feed 

28i,431 

38,626 

40,062, 

1,069,951 

2,269,912 

Corn  bran  

375 

266 

281 

5,241 

8,550 

Corn  feed  meal  . _ 

1,137 

1,406 

3,281 

44,973 

194,957 

Corn  ererm  meal  

7,219 

11,375 

27,687 

356,402 

1,522,785 

Corn  gluten  feed 

3,594 

3,938 

5,687 

116,904 

294,643 

Corn  gluten  meal  . ___ 

125 

125 

4,959 

7,050 

Corn  and  oats  chop 

1,875 

1,656 

1,937 

55,087 

110,195 

Miscellaneous  chop  

5,111 

4,781 

4,437 

166,594 

239,932 

Wheat  middlings  and  palm  oil 

1,125 

2,188 

8,094 

66,019 

385,112 

Palmn  mixed  feed 

94 

Alfalfa  meal 

313 

488 

781 

13,337 

32,005 

Animal  by-products 

6,406 

9,281 

16,062 

449,053 

1,284,478 

Cottonseed  meal 

11,004 

13,338 

18,500 

520,429 

875,975 

Cottonseed  feed 

260 

219 

1,719 

7,220 

68,811 

Cold  pressed  cottonseed 

406 

469 

187 

14,273 

7,274 

Linseed  meals 

2,968 

1,625 

5,094 

71,191 

287,861 

Unscreened  flaxseed  oil  feed  __  

631 

600 

438 

24,820 

24,090 

Distillers’  dried  grains 

188 

2,189 

2,500 

71,258 

108,200 

Brewers’  dried  grains 

1,343 

1,750 

2,094 

50,569 

86,272 

Dried  yeast  grains 

126 

94 

2,750 

2,914 

Malt,  sprnnts 

32 

31 

94 

039 

Dried  beet  pulp 

156 

63 

94 

1,844 

3,760 

Calf  meals  

938 

1,000 

1,062 

86,000 

121,163 

Velvet  bean  feeds 

407 

17,501 

Pripd  enena.nnt.  meal 

125 

6,875 

Cnndimental  stnelr  feeds 

2,062 

585,752 

Cnndimental  poultry  feeds 

5,625 

1,669,671 

Miseellanenns 

260 

Oat  middlings 

62 

Ripe  bran  and  riee  polish 

31 

'T’oasted  eorn  flalres 

31 

Corn  germ  meal  and  corn  distillers  dried 

grains 

125 

5,500 

Totals 

270,339 

317,664 

379,102 

10,316,516 

21,700,101 

The  annual  increase  in  tonnage  and  expenditures  for  feeding  stuffs 
for  the  past  six  years  is  summarized  in  the  following  statement : 


Year 

1912 

1913 

1914 

1915 

1916 

1917 

Estimated  sales,  tons  __ 

196,752 

217,689 

271,751 

270,339 

317,664 

379,152 

Estimated  retail  value, 
dollars  

6,371,571 

6,466,645 

8,461,751 

8,821,684 

10,316,516 

21,700,101 

SUMMARY  OF  ENFORCEMENT  OF  THE  FEEDING  STUFFS  CONTROL  LAW 

Since  July  i,  1907,  inspectors  have  secured  28,395  official  samples  in 
the  State,  26,648  of  which  have  been  analyzed  chemically  and  microscopi- 
cally, 1,518  microscopically  only,  and  229  discarded. 

The  following  summary  gives  in  brief  form  results  for  each  year : 


i9 


o*~ 

>*= 


Year 

19071 

19082 

1911 

1912 

1913 

1914 

1015 

1016 

1917 

Number  of  samples  secured 

Number  of  samples  analyzed  

1452 

2702 

2303 

2036 

2433 

2340 

2903 

2696 

3106 

2040 

3775 

3469 

3877 

3536 

3058 

2893 

Per  cent,  up  to  guarantee 

57.2 

67.1 

75.3 

74 

79.7 

82 

79.4 

76.7 

68.9 

Per  cent,  below  guarantee  in  fat  only. 

24.7 

22.4 

16.1 

17.5 

9.4 

9.6 

9.9 

8.1 

6.7 

Per  cent,  below  guarantee  in  crude  protein 
only  

13.9 

16.2 

7.5 

4.8 

6.0 

6.1 

8.3 

12.7 

9.1 

Per  cent,  below  guarantee  in  both  crude 
fat  and  crude  protein 

5.9 

7.6 

2.9 

2.4 

3.4 

2.3 

2.4 

3.3 

2.3 

Per  cent,  misbranded  as  to  presence  of 
inferior  ingredients  3 

0.9 

13.0 

3.2 

2.7 

4.0 

3.8 

3.8 

2.5 

12.6 

iJuly  1,  1907 — July  1,  1908 

2 July  1,  1908— Jan.  1,  1910 

3 Includes  samples  examined  microscopically 


It  is  practically  impossible  to  place  the  results  secured  from  the  en- 
forcement of  the  law  on  a dollars  and  cents  basis  but  special  attention 
is  requested  to  the  great  reduction  in  percentage  of  samples  found  de- 
ficient which  has  decreased  since  the  first  inspection  from  24.7  per  cent, 
for  crude  fat,  13.9  for  crude  protein,  5.9  for  both  crude  fat  and  crude 
protein  in  1907  to  6.7,  9.1  and  2.3  respectively  in  1917.  In  fact,  the  1917 
inspection  samples  in  this  respect  compare  very  favorably  with  any 
year  since  the  law  has  been  in  effect. 

SHIPMENTS  REMOVED  FROM  SALE 

The  following  tabulation  is  a summary  of  the  feeding  stuffs  removed 
from  sale  in  1917.  This  table  shows  the  number  of  shipments  withdrawn, 
also  the  amounts  and  the  specific  reasons  for  their  withdrawal ; including 
the  number  of  manufacturers  and  towns  represented. 

This  tabulation  shows  that  of  the  389  samples  of  feeding  stuffs  re- 
moved from  sale,  over  50  per  cent,  were  not  tagged,  about  25  per  cent, 
were  misbranded,  7.0  per  cent,  deficient  in  protein,  6.0  per  cent,  had  con- 
flicting guarantees,  5.0  per  cent,  were  deficient  in  protein  and  also 
adulterated,  and  the  remaining  7.0  per  cent,  deficiencies  in  fat  or  protein, 
excess  fiber,  improperly  labeled,  etc. 

In  most  cases  labels  were  furnished  by  the  manufacturers  for  the 
untagged  shipments  and  settlement  was  made  for  misbranding,  deficien- 
cies or  excess  fiber  by  re-registering  and  relabeling  with  a State  Chem- 
ist’s label,  showing  a guarantee  that  could  be  maintained.  Where  this 
was  not  done,  shipments  were  returned  to  the  manufacturer  and  replaced 
with  others  that  were  satisfactory  in  every  particular.  A refund  was  paid 
by  reputable  manufacturers  to  agents  and  consumers  when  the  deficiency 
was  deemed  sufficient  to  warrant  such  action. 


20 


Number 
of  ship- 
ments 
withdrawn 
from  sale 

Number 
of  manu- 
facturers 
represented 

Number 
of  towns 
represented 

Reasons  for  withdrawal  from  sale 

Amount 

withdrawn, 

pounds 

200 

92 

100 

Not  tagged 

1,708,002 

3 

3 

3 

Deficiency  in  crude  fat  

14,419 

27 

15 

18 

Deficiency  in  crude  protein  _ 

291,025 

1 

1 

1 

Deficiency  in  both  crude  fat  and  crude  protein 

6,000 

3 

2 

3 

Excess  fiber 

9,900 

2 

2 

2 

Deficiency  in  fat,  excess  fiber 

60,900 

2 

2 

2 

Deficiency  in  protein,  excess  fiber 

32,000 

8 

6’ 

7 

Deficiency  in  fat  and  protein,  excess  fiber.  _ _ 

57,300 

3 

3 

3 

Deficiency  in  fat  and  adulterated 

3,400 

19 

8 

17 

Deficiency  in  protein  and  adulterated  _ 

158,700 

2 

1 

2 

Deficiency  in  fat,  protein  and  adulterate^  _ 

17,800 

91 

38 

56 

Misbranding  _ _ _ 

1,061,900 

1 

1 

1 

Incorrect  guarantee . ___  __  _ ___ 

800 

3 

3 

3 

Wrong  label  _ - _ 

2,700 

24 

12 

16 

Conflict  

185,300 

389 

1331 

1 

1551 

Totals 

3,605,146 

1 These  totals  are  not  the  sum  of  the  respective  columns,  but  are  actually  the  number 
of  manufacturers  and  towns  represented 


REFUNDS 

Refunds  paid  for  deficiencies  due  to  error  for  which  reasonable  ex- 
planations are  available,  may  justly  be  considered  as  indicating  the  desire 
of  the  manufacturer  to  do  everything  possible  to  recompense  his  custom- 
ers. 

The  analyses  of  all  official  feed  samples  appear  in  Table  IV,  the  main 
inspection  table.  Consumers  and  agents  are  referred  to  results  given  in 
Table  IV.  The  foot  note  at  the  bottom  of  the  page  on  which  the  an- 
alyses appear,  explains  the  final  adjustment,  if  any,  which  was  made  on 
deficient  shipments.  Failure  of  this  foot  note  to  appear  means  that 
manufacturers  did  not  see  fit  to  adjust  this  shipment  or  did  not  notify 
the  State  Chemist  of  the  adjustment.  A little  study  of  these  results  will 
enable  agents  and  consumers  to  familiarize  themselves  with  the  manu- 
facturer who  adjusts  deficient  shipments  and  the  manufacturer  who  does 
not  adjust  deficient  shipments.  Purchasers  of  feed  may  feel  certain 
however  that  the  cases  requiring  a payment  of  refund  by  any  one  manu- 
facturer naturally  will  be  very  few,  if  ordinary  care  is  used  in  the  manu- 
facture and  registration  of  feeding  stufifs.  Refunds  never  fully  com- 
pensate the  purchaser  for  failure  to  obtain  material  ordered.  Manufac- 
turers are  requested  to  note  that  the  Indiana  purchasers  desire  the  feed 
purchased  and  not  refunds. 

Retailers  receiving  refunds  are  expected  to  distribute  same  to  the 
actual  consumers  on  the  basis  of  amount  purchased.  If  permission  is  given 
to  relabel,  the  price  must  be  reduced  on  the  basis  of  inspection  results. 

While  the  State  Chemist  appreciates  the  desire  of  the  manufacturer 
to  do  what  is  fair  by  his  customers,  since  there  is  no  provision  in  the  law 
for  compensation  of  deficiencies  by  refunds,  their  payment  will  be  con- 
sidered as  evidence  of  good  faith  but  will  not,  in  any  way  affect  the  right 
of  the  State  Chemist  to  take  such  action  as  may  be  considered  advisable. 

The  sum  of  $1,209.46  was  refunded  by  24  manufacturers  to  agents 
and  consumers  in  1917  to  adjust  29  deficient  brands  representing  627  tons. 


21 


In  addition  to  the  above  refunds,  the  State  Chemist  was  informed 
that  a shipment  of  tankage  containing  foreign  material  injured  the  health 
of  several  hogs  and  caused  the  death  of  others.  Some  of  the  hogs  were 
subjected  to  a post-mortem  examination  by  practicing  veterinarians  who 
made  affidavit  to  the  effect  that  the  foreign  substance  found  in  the  tankage 
was  the  direct  cause  of  the  death  of  the  hogs  in  question.  Two  Indiana 
feeders  were  refunded  the  sum  of  $1875  m settlement  for  their  losses. 

COOPERATION  WITH  THE  U.  S.  DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE 

All  interstate  shipments  showing  deficiencies  or  adulterations  suffi- 
cient to  justify  are  sampled  not  only  under  the  state  law  but  also  under 
the  Federal  Food  and  Drugs  Act.  The  state  samples  are  entirely  inde- 
pendent of  those  secured  under  the  Federal  Act  which  are  forwarded  to 
the  United  States  laboratory,  for  the  central  district,  in  Chicago.  The 
State  Chemist  has  absolutely  no  control  over  such  samples  or  the  sub- 
sequent proceedings  which  may  be  taken  under  the  Federal  law,  nor  do 
said  samples  or  proceedings  in  any  way  affect  proceedings  against  local 
dealers  under  the  state  law. 

The  State  Chemist’s  Department  continuing  its  cooperation  with  the 
Federal  Government  under  the  Federal  Food  and  Drugs  Act,  sent  to  the 
Central  District,  United  States  Bureau  of  Chemistry,  47  samples  of  in- 
terstate shipments  representing  25  manufacturers  and  14  types  of  feed. 
Since  November,  1911,  the  Department  has  collected  and  sent  United 
States  laboratories,  248  samples  of  interstate  shipments  representing  142 
manufacturers  and  122  types  of  feed. 

SAMPLES  EXAMINED  MICROSCOPICALLY 

Twenty-eight  hundred  ninety-three  samples  of  the  3058  secured 
in  1917,  were  analyzed  chemically  and  microscopically;  165  were  not 
analyzed  chemically,  as  many  of  them  were  duplicate  samples  of  ship- 
ments already  analyzed,  or  samples  which  had  been  secured  from  small 
lots  of  feed.  These  165  samples  were  subjected  to  miscroscopic  analyses 
only  and  eight  samples,  all  of  them  mill  feed,  showed  adulteration  with 
screenings. 

ANIMAL  BY-PRODUCTS 

Tankage,  meat  scraps,  blood  meal  and  other  animal  by-products  were 
very  much  in  demand  in  1917;  16,062  tons  were  retailed  at  $1,284,478 
in  comparison  with  9,281  tons  and  $449,053  in  expenditure  in  1916.  Al- 
though the  average  retail  price  of  this  type  of  feed  is  relatively  high, 
$79.97  per  ton,  the  amount  of  protein  carried  is  also  high  so  that  14.4 
pounds  of  protein  and  1.6  pounds  of  fat  was  the  average  amount  pur- 
chased for  $1.00  in  1917.  One  hundred  fifty-eight  samples  of  the  280  an- 
alyzed were  up  to  guarantee  in  every  particular,  41  were  deficient-  in  crude 
fat,  84  were  deficient  in  crude  protein,  10  were  deficient  in  both  crude  fat 
and  crude  protein,  101  were  adulterated  mostly  with  intestinal  ofifal,  sand 
or  glass  and  56  were  deficient  one  per  cent,  or  more  in  crude  protein.  Of 
the  shipments  deficient  one  or  more  per  cent,  in  crude  protein,  adjust- 
ments were  made  by  the  manufacturer  in  most  cases  to  the  agent  or  con- 
sumer by  relabelling  and  refunding  a portion  of  the  purchase  price ; 


22 


$279*85  representing  eight  manufacturers  and  eight  brands  was  refund- 
ed on  animal  by-product  shipments  in  1917. 

One  hundred  thirty-six  tons  representing  11  brands  and  10  manufac- 
turers were  returned  to  factories,  and  either  replaced  with  feed  up  to 
guarantee  in  every  particular  or  else  the  original  cost  price  was  refunded 
to  the  purchasers.  Six  tons  of  meat  scraps  found  to  be  deficient  in  crude 
protein  and  to  contain  ground  glass,  were  seized  by  Federal  agents,  con- 
demned and  sold  at  public  auction  with  the  understanding  that  the  product 
would  not  be  again  offered  for  sale  for  feeding  purposes. 

For  the  most  effective  cooperation  with  inspectors  of  the  State  Chem- 
ist’s Department,  agents  and  consumers  should  retain  all  way-bills  and  in- 
voices regarding  the  shipment  so  that  when  inspected  all  necessary  in- 
formation regarding  the  tankage  in  question  can  be  furnished. 

CONDIMENTAL  STOCK  FEEDS  AND  CONDIMENTAL  POULTRY  FEEDS 

Manufacturers  of  condimental  stock  and  poultry  feeds,  conditioners, 
tonics,  etc.,  found  a very  prolific  field  in  Indiana  in  1917.  From  reports 
available,  it  is  estimated  that  7687  tons  at  a retail  value  of  $2,255,423, 
were  sold  last  year.  These  figures  apply  only  to  samples  registered  with 
the  State  Chemist  and  possibly  as  great  an  amount  of  materials  of  this 
nature  which  do  not  come  under  the  law  were  also  sold  in  the  State  in  1917. 

In  general,  these  preparations  are  composed  of  some  ordinary  feed- 
ing stuff  or  feeding  stuff  adulterant  for  a base  or  carrier  together  with 
some  common  cathartic,  generally  Glauber’s  but  sometimes  Epsom  salts, 
and  appetizers,  such  as  gentian,  fenugreek,  ginger,  common  salt,  anise, 
with  small  amounts  of  worm  seed,  poke  root,  copperas,  sulphur,  etc. 

In  many  cases  after  the  passage  of  the  Feeding  Stuffs  Control  law, 
names,  claims  and  methods  of  compounding  were  changed  and  the  feed- 
ing stuff  base  omitted,  salt,  Glauber’s  salts,  and  similar  cheap  materials 
being  used  in  larger  amounts  and  some  of  the  largest  sellers  on  the  mar- 
ket today  contain  90  per  cent,  and  over  of  common  salt.  One  large  seller 
in  a near-by  county  proved  on  analysis  to  contain  98  per  cent,  of  lime, 
colored  with  Venetian  red.  This  condimental  is  not  registered  under  the 
law  and  would  make  a fine  “white-wash”  for  barns,  provided  no  objection 
was  raised  to  the  red  color  and  to  the  original  cost. 

As  stated  in  previous  bulletins,  the  large  majority  of  properly  con- 
ducted experiments  fails  to  show  profitable  results  from  the  use  of  these 
preparations  but  those  who  wish  to  use  them  are  requested,  both  in  co- 
operation with  the  State  Chemist  and  for  their  own  protection,  to  pur- 
chase those  which  are  registered  and  thus  obtain  the  protection  which 
the  law  affords. 

Consumers  of  Indiana  who  pay  $2,255,423  a year  for  feeds  of  this 
type,  would  do  well  to  give  the  matter  careful  study  and  consideration 
before  purchasing  feeds. 

COTTONSEED  MEAL 

The  sales  of  cottonseed  meal  in  1917  were  estimated  at  18,500  tons 
with  an  estimated  retail  value  of  $875,975.  Referring  to  Table  II,  it  is 
noted  that  the  average  protein  found  was  38.9  per  cent,  while  16.5  pounds 


23> 


of  protein  and  3.3  pounds  of  fat  were  the  average  amounts  obtained  for 
$1.00  in  1917,  cottonseed  meal  being  the  cheapest  protein  feed. 

Two  hundred  fifteen  of  the  312  samples  analyzed  were  up  to  guaran- 
tee ; 10  were  deficient  0.3  per  cent,  or  more  in  crude  fat ; six  were  deficient 
in  both  crude  fat  and  crude  protein  and  28  were  deficient  1.0  per  cent, 
or  more  in  crude  protein.  Fourteen  manufacturers  representing  19 
brands  refunded  to  the  agents  and  consumers  $887.99  on  shipments  of 
cottonseed  meal  found  more  than  1.0  per  cent,  deficient  in  protein. 

Inasmuch  as  the  majority  of  this  meal  is  handled  by  brokers,  it  be- 
comes necessary  that  the  agents  and  consumers  retain  all  data  regarding 
their  shipments  of  this  product,  so  that  the  brokers  will  be  in  a position 
to  trace  the  car  and  determine  the  cotton  oil  mill  that  originally  furnished 
the  feed  in  question. 

CORN  BRAN  AND  CORN  FEED  MEAL 

It  is  to  be  regretted  that  the  most  of  the  so-called  corn  bran  sold  in 
Indiana  is  incorrectly  registered.  The  21  samples  secured  in  1917  aver- 
age 7.1  per  cent,  crude  fat,  showing  conclusively  that  a considerable  por- 
tion of  the  corn  germ  remains  with  the  bran  and  was  sold  as  corn  bran. 
According  to  the  definition  of  corn  bran  adopted  by  the  Association  of 
Feed  Control  Officials  namely,  “Corn  Bran  is  the  outer  coating  of  the  corn 
kernel.”  This  product  should  contain,  little,  if  any,  corn  germ  or  meal. 
Corn  bran  can  be  safely  guaranteed  to  contain  not  less  than  2.0  per  cent, 
crude  fat,  7.0  per  cent,  crude  protein  and  not  more  than  10  per  cent, 
crude  fiber. 

The  following  comparison  between  corn  bran  and  corn  feed  meal 
samples  secured  and  analyzed  in  1917  shows  at  a glance  that  the  corn 
bran  contained  corn  germs,  and  could  more  correctly  be  registered  as  corn 
mill  feed,  which  term  is  accepted  by  the  State  Chemist  for  the  by-product 
produced  in  the  manufacture  of  corn  meal  or  corn  flour  from  cleaned 
shelled  corn. 


Material 

Number 

of 

samples 

Water, 
per  cent. 

Crude 

fat, 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein, 
per  cent. 

Cfude 
fiber, 
per  cent. 

Corn  bran  

21 

9.7 

7.1 

10.3 

6.3 

Corn  feed  meal  . 

46 

10.3 

4.8 

9.5 

4.0 

It  is  hoped  that  manufacturers  will  remedy  this  condition  and  secure 
registrations  more  representative  of  their  product. 

Due  to  the  increased  demand  for  corn  flour,  the  tonnage  of  corn  bran 
and  corn  feed  meal  increased  from  1662  tons  in  1916  to  3562  tons  in  1917. 

HOMINY  FEED,  MEAL  OR  CHOP 

The  sales  of  hominy  feed  in  1917  were  unusually  good,  40,062  tons 
of  an  estimated  retail  value  of  $2,269,912  being  sold  in  the  State.  The 
average  content  of  crude  fat  and  crude  protein  increased  materially  over 
1916  as  did  also  the  percentage  of  samples  up  to  guarantee  in  every 
particular. 


24 


The  influence  of  the  frosted  corn  crop  upon  hominy  feed  was  not 
materially  felt  in  1917,  the  better  grades  of  corn  being  first  used.  Since 
January,  1918,  however,  many  manufacturers  have  re-registered  their 
hominy  feed  brands  with  a lower  guarantee  of  crude  fat  and  crude  protein, 
giving  as  their  reason  for  so  doing,  the  poor  quality  of  corn  now  available. 

Agents  and  consumers  are  advised  to  examine  carefully  the  manufac- 
turers’ guarantees  as  given  on  State  Chemist’s  labels.  The  following  com- 
parison illustrates  the  inspection  of  hominy  feed  in  1916  and  1917. 


Number  of 

Water, 

Crude 

Crude 

Average 

retail 

Number  of 
samples 

Hominy  feed 

Year 

samples 

analyzed 

per  cent. 

fat, 

per  cent. 

protein, 
per  cent. 

price 
per  ton 

up  to 
guarantee 

Hominy  feed  

1916 

67 

8.3 

6.8 

10.6 

30.29 

52 

Hominy  feed 

1917 

60 

8.4 

8.2 

11.2 

56.06 

52 

POULTRY  FEEDS 

The  United  States  Food  Administration  has  advocated  increasing  the 
supply  of  poultry  and  poultry  products.  Poultry  feeds  therefore  will 
probably  be  sold  in  ever  increasing  amounts  and  poultry  raisers,  feeders 
and  dealers  are  requested  to  give  attention  to  the  purchase  of  chicken 
feeds. 

Poultry  feeds  are  divided  into  two  general  classes;  those  contain- 
ing cereals  and  seeds  without  grit,  and  those  containing  cereals  and  seeds 
with  limestone  grit,  charcoal  or  oyster  shells. 

The  total  tonnage  of  the  poultry  feeds  sold  in  1917  when  compared 
with  1916  sales  shows  a decrease  of  739  tons  in  1917. 

The  estimated  expenditure  in  1917  was  $2,664,469,  an  increase  of 
$1,076,687  over  1916.  This  increase  can  be  explained  by  the  advanced 
prices  of  poultry,  feeds  in  1917. 

Assuming  3.0  per  cent,  as  the  average  amount  of  grit  found  in 
14,125  tons  sold  in  1917,  which  had  grit  guaranteed,  there  would  have 
been  423.75  tons  of  grit  which  was  bought  by  the  feeders  of  Indiana  at 
approximately  the  prevailing  price  of  cereals,  seeds  and  other  by-products. 

Comparing  poultry  feeds  with  grit  with  poultry  feeds  without  grit, 
as  given  in  Table  II  page  17,  it  is  readily  seen  that  more  pounds  of  fat 
and  protein  are  obtained  for  $1.00  on  poultry  feeds  without  grit. 

Comparing  the  pounds  of  fat  and  protein  purchased  for  $1.00  on 
both  poultry  feed  with  grit  and  poultry  feed  without  grit  by  the  method 
given  on  page  16  the  price  asked  for  grit  can  be  readily  ascertained. 

Whether  it  would  not  be  more  profitable  to  purchase  the  grit  sep- 
arately rather  than  pay  feed  prices  for  grit,  deserves  the  careful  attention 
of  purchasers  and  feeders  of  poultry  feeds. 

PROPRIETARY  FEEDS  WITH  AND  WITHOUT  MOLASSES 

Brands  of  proprietary  feeds  with  molasses  and  without  molasses 
were  not  staple  in  1917.  Manufacturers  experienced  considerable  diffi- 
culty in  obtaining  the  different  ingredients  from  which  they  formerly 


25 


compounded  their  proprietary  feeds  and  were  often  compelled  to  change 
the  formula  and  re-register  to  properly  make  use  of  ingredients  that 
could  be  maintained.  Numerous  brands  were  re-registered  three  or  more 
times  during  the  winter  of  1917  and  1918  and  while  the  guarantees  of 
crude  fat  and  crude  protein  were  substantially  met,  the  guaranteed  in- 
gredients in  many  brands  were  not  correct. 

The  tonnage  of  proprietary  feeds  containing  molasses  in  1917  was 
33,687  tons,  an  increase  of  3367  tons  over  1916  and  from  best  evidence 
obtainable  the  actual  amount  of  molasses  used  in  this  class  of  feeds  was 
much  less  in  1917  than  in  1916. 

The  tonnage  of  proprietary  feeds  without  molasses  in  1917  was 
22,680,  being  nearly  two  and  one-half  times  greater  than  the  tonnage  sold 
in  1916. 

EXPLANATION  OF  TABLES 

In  considering  the  results  and  summaries  of  inspection,  it  should  be 
noted  that  in  the  case  of  deficient,  adulterated  or  misbranded  samples, 
manufacturers  were  given  10  days’  advance  notice  and,  opportunity  to  re- 
quest a portion  of  sample  and  time  for  review  of  the  results  by  their 
chemist.  The  results  as  reported  in  Table  IV  are  official  and  final. 

Table  I,  page  11  contains  the  digestion  coefficients  of  a number 
of  common  feeding  stuffs  as  determined  by  digestion  experiments  and 
compiled  by  various  authorities. 

Table  II,  page  17  is  the  average  analyses  of  29  classes  of  feeding 
stuffs  together  with  the  pounds  of  crude  fat  and  crude  protein  obtain- 
able for  $1.00. 

Table  III,  page  18  contains  the  estimated  sales  of  1917  compared 
with  those  of  1915  and  1916  and  also  the  estimated  retail  value  of  all 
feeds  sold  in  1916  and  1917. 

Table  IV,  page  27  contains  the  detailed  results  of  samples  analyzed 
chemically  and  examined  microscopically  or  macroscopically  for  the  year 
ending  December  31,  1917  including  manufacturers’  guarantees,  found 
composition,  names  and  addresses  of  persons  from  whom  samples  were 
obtained. 

In  Table  IV  the  results  in  the  found  column  of  samples  showing  a 
deficiency  of  0.3  per  cent,  in  crude  fat  or  1.0  per  cent,  in  crude  protein  or 
deficient  in  both  crude  fat  and  crude  protein  are  printed  in  bold  face  type. 

Ingredients  present  and  not  guaranteed  under  the  heading  “Princi- 
pal ingredients  identified”  are  printed  in  bold  face  type.  In  poultry  feeds 
the  percentage  of  grit  was  determined ; and  where  found  present  in  quan- 
tities probably  in  excess  of  the  fowl’s  needs,  the  percentage  is  printed  in 
bold  face  type,  unless  the  manufacturer  has  a higher  percentage  guar- 
anteed. 

Under  the  heading  “Principal  ingredients  identified”  in  Table  IV, 
it  is  not  intended  to  assert  that  the  materials  noted  are  all  that  the  samples 
contain  but  that  they  are  the  ones  constituting  the  bulk  of  the  feed  and 
are  present  in  such  quantities  as  to  be  capable  of  identification. 

In  conjunction  with  Table  IV,  agents  and  consumers  should  also 
consult  “Shipments  removed  from  sale,”  page  19,  and  “Refunds,”  page 
20,  in  deciding  from  whom  to  purchase. 


26 


SPECIAL  NOTICE 

Bulletin  No.  216  contains  a list  of  the  brands  of  feeding  stuffs  which 
will  be  on  sale  in  Indiana  in  1918.  Agents  and  consumers  will  secure  the 
best  results  by  using  Bulletin  No.  216  in  conjunction  with  this  bulletin. 

» 

ATTENTION,  CONSUMERS,  AGENTS  AND  DEALERS 

In  deciding  on  companies  from  which  to  purchase  and  represent, 
study  closely  the  details  of  inspection  in  Table  IV,  page  27,  and  purchase 
from  and  represent  companies  which  ship  feed  properly  labeled  and  up  to 
guarantee;  when  for  any  reason  refund  is  received,  notify  this  depart- 
ment promptly.  Dealers  who  have  sold  any  deficient  feed  and  received 
refund  must  file  receipts  showing  payment  of  proper  amount  to  such 
customers.  When  car  lots  or  appreciable  amounts  of  feed  are  received, 
keep  all  bills,  way  bills  and  correspondence ; also  notify  the  State  Chemist 
of  arrival  and  probable  time  of  distribution.  No  excuse  will  be  accepted 
from  agents  or  dealers  who  persist  in  representing  companies  which  ship 
deficient,  adulterated  or  unlabeled  feed. 

Fractional  carloads  will  not  be  shipped.  Cooperate  by  ordering 
either  full  carloads  or  place  your  order  in  advance,  thus  enabling  the 
manufacturer  to  bunch  two  or  more  orders  from  the  same  section  and 
make  up  a full  car. 

The  facts  are  presented  in  this  bulletin,  and  the  best  interests  of  pur- 
chasers of  feed,  as  well  as  other  citizens  of  the  State,  will  be  secured  by  co- 
operating with  this  department  and  patronizing  firms  which  meet  the  re- 
quirements of  the  law  in  every  particular. 


27 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 

protein 

percent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

T3 

C 

3 

o 

WHEAT  BRAN 

1 

Aetna  Mills  Company,  The, 

Wellington,  Kansas 

5095 

7007 

10.4 

3.5 

4.1 

14.0 

15.8 

Akin-Erskine  Milling  Company, 

Evansville,  Ind. 

0031 

5795 

Jeff  Ray  & Son,  Rockport 

10.7 

3.9 

3.9 

14.0 

15.5 

Winter  Wheat  Bran  2 . 

6031 

0720 

R.  P.  Moore  Milling  Co., 

Princeton  

8.7 

3.9 

4.0 

14.0 

15.2 

Akron  Milling  Company,  The, 

Akron,  Ind. 

3597 

7186 

Manufacturer 

10.4 

3.5 

3.9 

14.0 

14.9 

3597 

8055 

Manufacturer  __  

8.1 

3.5 

3.6 

14.0 

15.5 

Amboy  Milling  Company,  Amboy,  Ind. 

6087 

6871 

9.8 

3.5 

'4.0 

13.0 

16.1 

Angola  Flouring  Mills,  Angola,  Ind. 

Angola  Flouring  Mills  Wheat  Bran 

1098 

7388 

Manufacturer  

10.6 

3.8 

3.8 

14.0 

15.6 

Angola  Flouring  Mills  Wheat  Bran 

1098 

8262 

Manufacturer  

8.1 

3.8 

3.6  | 

14.0 

15.1 

Ashley-Hudson  Milling  & Grain 

Company,  Ashley,  Ind. 

Ashley-Hndsnn  Wheat  Bran 

3144 

7386 

Ashley-Hudson  Milling  fin 

10.1 

3.8 

4.0 

14.0 

15.9 

ttAshley-Hudson  Wheat  Bran  

3144 

8250 

Frank  Strock,  Hudson  _ 

8.0 

3 8 

4.6 

14.0 

17.7 

Ashley-Hudson  Wheat  Bran 

3144 

8253 

Kerlin  & Hammond,  Ashley. 

8.6 

3.8 

4.0 

14.0 

16.2 

Bay  State  Milling  Company, 

Winona,  Minn. 

“Winona”  Coarse  Wheat  Bran 

8193 

7366 

Luebcke  Bros.,  Crown  Point 

10.2 

4.5 

5.0 

15.0 

15.4 

Berlein  Mills,  Angola,  R.  R.,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran 

7738 

8258 

Manufacturer 

8.9 

3.0 

4.0 

14.0 

15.4 

Burrell  & Morgan,  Elkhart,  Ind. 

Bran  

253 

6496 

Manufacturer  _ 

9.9 

3.8 

3.8 

14.0 

14.0 

Bran ...  __ 

253 

7548 

Manufacturer 

9.0 

3.8 

3.6 

14.0 

14.8 

Butler  Milling  Company,  Butler,  Ind. 

Butler  Milling  Co’s  Wheat  Bran 

1029 

7402 

Manufacturer  __  

9.8 

3.8 

4.1 

14.0 

15.3 

Butler  Milling  Co’s  Wheat  Bran.__  .. 

1029 

8236 

Manufacturer 

8.9 

3.8 

3.9 

14.0 

15.6 

Cauble,  0.  L.,  Pekin,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  

1018 

5898 

Manufacturer 

9.5 

3.8 

3.8 

14.0 

15.9 

Wheat  Bran  _ 

1018 

8030 

Manufacturer 

8.9 

3.8 

4.4 

14.0 

15.3 

Cauble  & Dunlevy,  Henryville,  Ind. 

Bran 

4295 

5869 

Manufacturer 

9.5 

3.5 

3.6 

14.0 

14.5 

Champion  Roller  Milling  Company, 

Richmond,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  

2496 

6250 

Manufacturer 

10.0 

3.5 

4.1 

14.8 

14.4 

Wheat  Bran  

2496 

7954 

Manufacturer 

8.9 

3.5 

3.9 

14.8 

14.9 

City  Milling  Company,  Kendallville,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran 

6273 

6511 

Manufacturer  _ 

11.0 

3.8 

4.9 

14.0 

15.4 

Wheat  Bran  

6273 

7511 

Manufacturer  _ 

9.5 

3.8 

3.8 

14.0 

16.5 

City  Mills.  South  Whitley,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  _ 

6105 

7151 

Manufacturer 

9.6 

3.5 

4.0 

14.0 

14.1 

Wheat  Bran 

6105 

8074 

Manufacturer 

8.1 

3.5 

3.9 

14.0 

15.8 

Claypole,  Geo.  M.,  Sardinia,  Ind. 

Geo.  M.  Claypole’s  Wheat  Bran 

2144 

5457 

Manufacturer 

10.1 

3.2 

3.8 

14.0 

15.0 

Cook  Milling  Company, 

Richmond,  R.  R.  No.  4,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  _ _ __  _ 

4796 

7911 

Manufacturer 

9.0 

3.4 

3.4 

12.0 

15.0 

tt  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished.  2 Screenings  present,  1 7/to  tons  removed  from 

1 Screenings  present,  1200  lbs.  removed  from  sale.  sale 


Relabeled  No.  7729 


28 


TABLE  IV.  Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 


Coppes  Bros.  & Zook,  Nappanee,  Ind. 

Bran  

Bran  

Bran  

Bran  ™[” 

Daniels  & Pickering  Company, 
Middletown,  Ind. 

Daniels  Wheat  Bran 

Deutsch  & Sickert  Company, 
Milwaukee,  Wis. 

Coarse  Wheat  Bran *  3 

Duglay  & Jones,  Churubusco,  Ind. 
Wheat  Bran  

Dunlap  Grain  Company,  The  J.  M., 
Franklin,  Ind. 

“Dairy”  Wheat  Bran 

Farmers  Milling  & Elevator  Company, 
Veedersburg,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  

Fyke  Milling  Company,  Lagrange,  Ind. 
Wheat  Bran  4 

Geneva  Milling  & Grain  Company, 
Geneva,  Ind. 

Miller’s  Wheat  Bran 

Gerald  County  Milling  Company, 
Westington  Springs,  S.  Dakota 
Dakota  Cream  Bran  5 

Globe  Mills,  The,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind. 

The  Globe  Mills  Wheat  Bran 

The  Globe  Mills  Wheat  Bran 

Green  Bros.  & Oldfatber,  Warsaw,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  6 - 

Wheat  Bran  ZZZII 

Greenfield  Milling  Company, 

Greenfield,  Ind. 

Bran  

Hall  Milling  Company,  W.  C., 

Brazil.  Ind. 

Hall’s  Wheat  Bran  

Hampton,  W.  D.,  Worthington,  Ind. 
Wheat  Bran  

Huntington  Mill  Company, 

Huntington,  Ind. 

Bran  

Bran  I_II_ZZZZZIIZ-ZZZ 

Hunter-Robinson-Wenz  Milling 
Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 
*Dreadnaught  Pure  Extra  Coarse 

Wheat  Bran  

*Dreadnaught  Pure  Extra  Coarse 
Wheat  Bran  


* Not  tagged 

3 Screenings  present 

4 Screenings  present 


Number 

Crude 

Crude 

a 

o 

Sample  secured  from 

Li  tl 

fat 

per  cent. 

protein 
per  cent. 

Officia 

»Q 

CD 

S3 

S a> 
* « 
S ^ 

Is, 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

5628 

5953 

Beach  & Simmers,  Albany... 

9.0 

3.6 

3.8 

13.5 

13.6 

5628 

5628 

6491 

8051 

Manufacturer  . ... 

Kraus  & Apfelbaum,  Pierceton 

9.9 

8.1 

3.6 

3.6 

4.4 

3.7 

13.5 

13.5 

15.1 

15.2 

5628 

8306 

Manufacturer  _ 

9.4 

3.6 

3.6 

13.5 

15^0 

104 

5380 

7469 

6283 

7531 

7408 

J.  M.  Walker  & Son,  Middle- 
town  

Yorktown  Lumber  Co.,  York- 
town  . 

Manufacturer  

9.5 

8.9 

9.3 

3.2 

4.0 

3.0 

4.3 

5.6 

4.1 

12.0 

15.0 

13.0 

15.8 

14.4 

15.6 

8569 

7762 

Manufacturer  _ __ 

8.9 

38 

4.4 

14.0 

16.3 

5000 

6052 

Manufacturer 

10.1 

3.0 

4.4 

12.0 

15.3 

1814 

7306 

Manufacturer  

8.7 

3.8 

3.8 

14.0 

13.9 

3109 

7094 

Manufacturer  

10.1 

3.3 

3.6 

14.0 

16.4 

425 

5487 

5518 

Richard  Hagans,  Greenfield.  . 

Manufacturer  

9.1 

8 6 

3 8 

4.9 

3.8 

14.0 

14.7 

15.1 

425 

8195 

Manufacturer  _ __ 

9.3 

3.8 

3.8 

14.0 

15l8 

7919 

7169. 

Manufacturer  

9.3 

3 5 

4.0 

14.0 

15.1 

7919 

8064 

Manufacturer  

8.3 

3.5 

3.9 

14.0 

16.3 

4469 

6555 

Manufacturer  

9.1 

3.0 

3.7 

15.0 

19.2 

412 

6662 

Manufacturer  

10.2 

3.8 

4.4 

14.0 

15.8 

1124 

7177 

Manufacturer  ... 

10.7 

3.8 

4.2 

14.0 

17.8 

491 

6586 

Manufacturer  __  

8.7 

3.6 

3.7 

14.2 

14.2 

491 

7594 

Manufacturer  _.  . 

8.1 

3.6 

3.8 

14.2 

16.5 

6967 

Chas.  Rigney,  Orleans 

F.  H.  Turner  & Sons,  Lost  River 

10.0 

10.0 

— 

4.4 

4.7 

— 

15.9 

16.2 

6 Not  tagged.  Screenings  present.  Returned 
6 Screenings  and  chaff  present 


29 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

j Found 

Igleheart  Bros.,  Evansville,  Ind. 

Pure  Wheat  Bran 

5771 

7896 

P.  Reising  & Sons,  Posey ville___ 

8.6 

4.0 

3.8 

14.5 

16.0 

Iroquois  Roller  Mills,  Rensselaer,  Ind. 

6139 

6051 

Manufacturer  _ 

9.1 

3.0 

4.3 

13.0 

13.9 

Katterjohn,  A.  F.,  Lynnville,  Ind. 

487 

6929 

9.4 

3.7 

3.5 

14.0 

14.9 

Kehlor  Flour  Mills  Company, 

St.  Louis,  Mo. 

tfPalace  Bran 

5S08 

6766 

Casper  Fohl  & Son, 

Cedar  Grove ___ 

9.7 

4.0 

4.6 

14.5 

15.7 

Kendall,  Dor  Cuy,  Williamsburg,  Ind. 

Cuy  Kendall  Wheat  Bran  __  ___  __  _ 

362 

7900 

Williamsburg  Flour  Mills, 

Williamsburg  

9.1 

3.8 

3.8 

14.0 

14.9 

Kennedy  Milling  Company,  G.  W., 

Shelbyville,  Ind. 

Kennedy’s  Winter  Wheat  Rran 

8201 

7863 

8.1 

3.5 

3.7 

16.0 

17.0 

Lawrenceburg  Roller  Mills  Company, 

Lawrenceburg,  Ind. 

Snowflake  Bran • 

3930 

5405 

Geo.  Niemeyer  & Son,  Dillsboro. 

9.6 

3.8 

3.9 

14.2 

14.0 

3930 

6551 

9.9 

3.8 

3.8 

14.2 

14.5 

Snowflake  Bran  _ 

3930 

7703 

C.  W.  Curtis,  Aurora 

9.2 

3.8 

3.8 

14.2 

14.7 

Golden  Bull  Bran  

7110 

5555 

King  Grain  On.,  Wabash  . 

10.9 

2.0 

4.2 

15.5 

15.8 

Golden  Bull  Bran __ 

7110 

7060 

City  Mills,  Rising  Snn 

m2 

2!o 

4.1 

15.5 

14.9 

Leesburg  Grain  & Milling  Company, 

The,  Leesburg,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  ___  _ _ . .. 

305 

5554 

W.  H.  McCarty,  Wabash 

9.7 

3.8 

4.1 

14.0 

14.6 

Wheat  Bran . 

305 

7266 

Manufacturer 

9.3 

3.8 

4.2 

14.0 

14.0 

Lingeman,  Adams  & Company, 

Brownsburg,  Ind. 

Bran  

3320 

6445 

Manufacturer 

10.2 

3.8 

4.0 

14.0 

15.1 

Listman  Mill  Company,  La  Crosse,  Wis. 

Elmco  Bran  _ _ 

3368 

6908 

Williamsport  Grain  Co., 

Williamsport  

9.3 

4.1 

4.7 

16.6 

15  5 

Little  Crow  Milling  Company, 

Warsaw,  Ind. 

Little  Crow  Wheat  Bran  . ___ 

360 

8058 

Manufacturer 

8.4 

3.8 

3.8 

14.0 

15.8 

Lynn  Milling  Company,  The,  Lynn,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  __  . . . 

6233 

7017 

Lynn  City  Mills  Lynn 

10.7 

3.5 

4.4 

13.5 

14.1 

Maegerlein,  E.  S.,  Patricksburg,  Ind. 

Bran  ___  . _ 

8103 

6208 

Manufacturer 

9.4 

3.0 

4.6 

13.0 

16.3 

Bran  

8103 

7136 

Manufacturer 

9.1 

3 0 

3^6 

13.0 

m9 

Maegerlein  Roller  Mills,  Arthur, 

Clay  City,  Ind. 

Bran 7 ...  

3807 

7467 

Manufacturer 

8.8 

3.0 

4.3 

13.0 

15  6 

Martin  & Martin,  New  Castle,  Ind. 

Martin  & Martin’s  Wheat  Bran 

3150 

6504 

Manufacturer  _ 

10.0 

3.2 

4.2 

12.0 

15.9 

Maumee  Valley  Mills,  New  Haven,  Ind. 

Bran  ____________  

6896 

6030 

Manufacturer 

9.3 

3 5 

3 3 

13  5 

Bran  __  ___  __ 

6896 

8174 

Manufacturer 

14.0 

ttBran  

6896 

8196 

DeBolt  & Niswonger, 

8.8 

3.5 

3.5 

14.0 

15.8 

Milan  Milling  Company,  Milan,  Ind. 

Monroeville  

86 

3.5 

3.4 

14.0 

16.1 

Wheat  Bran  ... 

3315 

7702 

Manufacturer 

9.8 

3.7 

3.8 

14.0 

14.0 

Milford  Grain  & Milling  Company, 

Milford,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  

8479 

8267 

Manufacturer  

7.7 

3.0 

3.9 

14.0 

16.4 

* Not  tagged  7 Screenings  present 

tT  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished 


30 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Number 

Crude 

fat 

Crude 

protein 

G 

Label 

.2 

Sample  secured  from 

2+j  . 

per  cent. 

per  cent. 

o 

SB 

o 

O 

a;  n 

CD 

G 

2 § 

® y 

§ 1 

i T3 
u « 
a « 
p 

O rt 

-a 

G 

G 

£ 

i y 

O § 

TJ 

G 

P 

O 

fc 

Monarch  Milling  Company,  The, 

Hutchinson,  Kansas 

Winter  Wheat  Rran 

8742 

7823 

Chas.  Hartman,  Evansville 

8.5 

3.0 

4.1 

16.0 

16.8 

Moscow  Roller  Mills,  Moscow,  Ind. 

tfWheat  Bran  

1634 

7867 

Manufacturer  _ 

9.5 

3.7 

3.7 

14.1 

17  2 

Wheat  Bran 

1634 

7874 

Manufacturer 

9.3 

3.7 

3.6 

14.1 

16.6 

Myers  & Son,  Joseph  H.,  Chili,  Ind. 

Bran  _ 

3326 

6614 

Manufacturer 

9.4 

3 0 

3.9 

16.0 

14.1 

Bran  

3326 

7407 

J.  L & .T.  M.  Myers,  Chili 

10.0 

3.0 

3.9 

16.0 

15.4 

Naber  & Company,  Chas.  F., 

Alexandria,  Ind. 

Nabers  Bran 

7197 

6064 

Manufacturer 

10.7 

3.3 

3.5 

14.0 

14.8 

7197 

7578 

Manufacturer 

8.6 

3.3 

3.2 

14.0 

16.1 

Nodine,  W.  J.,  Waterloo,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran 

2773 

7400 

Manufacturer  

10.3 

3.0 

3.9 

13.0 

14.1 

Wheat,  Bran 

2773 

8242 

Manufacturer  

9.5 

3.0 

3.8 

13.0 

14.8 

Northwestern  Consolidated  Milling 

Company,  The,  Minneapolis,  Minn. 

2825 

6392 

Ed,  Rehnke  &,  Rnn,  Cary 

• 

10.0 

4.0 

4.9 

14.5 

14.7 

Osakis  Milling  Company,  Osakis,  Minn. 

Fancy  Bran  _ _ 

3194 

7558 

Louis  P.  Plotnicki,  South  Bend.. 

8.0 

4.0 

5.4 

14.0 

15.0 

Plainville  Milling  Company, 

Plainville,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran 

4372 

7718 

Flem  Vanmeter,  Jasonville  

8.7 

3.8 

3.6 

14.2 

16.0 

Pyrmont  Mills  Company,  Pyrmont,  Ind. 

Pyrmont  Bran  __  _ 

7157 

6216 

Manufacturer  __  

9.1 

3.0 

3.2 

14.0 

15.9 

Ray  & Rice,  Camden,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  

5342 

5038 

Manufacturer  

9.2 

3.3 

3.6 

14.0 

13.9 

Richmond  Roller  Mills,  Richmond,  Ind. 

The  Richmond  Roller  Mills  Wheat 

Bran  

482 

6247 

Manufacturer  

9.9 

3.2 

4.4 

12.0 

15.0 

The  Richmond  Roller  Mills  Wheat 

Bran 

482 

7952 

Manufacturer  

8.5 

3.2 

4.2 

12.0 

14.7 

Rittenhouse,  E.  S.,  Liberty  Mills,  Ind. 

Liberty  Bird  Bran 

3043 

8110 

Manufacturer  

9.0 

2.5 

3.8 

12.5 

15.9 

Roper  & Brown,  Hobart,  Ind. 

Hobart  Wheat  Bran 

4178 

6454 

Manufacturer  

10.4 

3.5 

3.8 

14.0 

14.5 

Russell-Miller  Milling  Company, 

Fargo,  N.  Dakota 

Bran  . . 

3584 

7022 

Goodrich  Bros.  Hay  & Grain 

Co.,  Winchester 

8.8 

4.0 

4.3 

13.0 

14.8 

Schilt,  W.  F.,  Bremen,  Ind. 

15.2 

Wheat  Bran 

7971 

6531 

Manufacturer  _ 

9.3 

37 

4.0 

14.0 

Wheat  Bran 

7971 

8310 

Manufacturer  __  

9.6 

3.7 

3.8 

14.0 

15.4 

Schultz,  Baujan  & Company, 

Beardstown,  111. 

Sunbeam  Bran 

6013 

6641 

Frater-Mottier  Co.,  Terre  Haute 

10.3 

3 5 

50 

14.0 

15.0 

Sunbeam  Bran 

6013 

7001 

Batesvide  Roller  Mills,  Batesville 

I 10.2 

3.5 

5.0 

14.0 

15.3 

Seidel,  W.  T.,  Orland,  Ind. 

13.3 

Wheat  Bran  __  

6372 

6074 

Orland  Milling  Co.,  Orland 

11.1 

3.0 

3.6 

13.0 

Shine  & Company,  John  H., 

New  Albany,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  

2080 

8317 

C.  H.  Ashworth,  Crandall 

8.2 

1 3.8 

3.6 

14.0 

16.2 

ft  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished 


3i 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 


Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
.protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

6303 

6432 

Manufacturer  

9.4 

3.7 

4.1 

14.0 

14.5 

6303 

7492 

Manufacturer  

9.2 

3.7 

4.2 

14.0 

15.0 

7952 

6508 

Geo.  Steckley,  Kendallville  

10.4 

4.0 

4.8 

14.5 

16.0 

1038 

5451 

Manufacturer  

8.5 

3.8 

3.9 

14.2 

16.8 

502 

7450 

Manufacturer  

9.9 

3.8 

3.9 

14.0 

15.0 

5553 

8227 

Manufacturer  

9.1 

3.4 

3.7 

14.0 

15.7 

762 

6347 

Manufacturer  

9.5 

3.8 

4.1 

14.0 

13.8 

5947 

6565 

C.  B.  Cook  Co.,  Greenwood..  . 

8.7 

3.8 

4.6 

14.0 

15.5 

5947 

7748 

Manufacturer  

9.3 

3.8 

4.4 

14.0 

16.0 

656 

7675 

Manufacturer  

9.1 

3.2 

3.9 

14.0 

14.5 

7031 

6575 

H.  W.  Timbrook,  Auburn 

8.7 

38 

4.3 

14.0 

13.9 

7031 

7397 

Manufacturer  ...  _ 

9.8 

38 

4.1 

14.0 

15.8 

7031 

8235 

H.  W.  Timbrook,  Auburn  ... 

9.1 

3.8 

3 9 

14.0 

15.9 

409 

5532 

Manufacturers  

8.8 

3.8 

3.9 

14.0 

15.1 

817 

6693 

Manufacturer  

9.3 

3.8 

3.5 

14  0 

15.0 

817 

7404 

Gandy  Grain  Co.,  Churubusco.. 

9.8 

38 

3.8 

14.0 

15.8 

817 

8057 

O.  Gandy  & Co.,  Mentone 

8.4 

3.8 

3 8 

14.0 

15.6 

5397 

7985 

Manufacturer  

10.3 

3.5 

3.9 

12.5 

18.1 

933 

7752 

Manufacturer  

8.8 

3 8 

4.2 

14.0 

16.2 

1249 

6533 

Manufacturer  

9.6 

3.8 

3.9 

14.0 

14.3 

1249 

8308 

Manufacturer  _ 

10.0 

3.8 

4.0 

14.0 

15.7 

2940 

8229 

Manufacturer  

8.9 

3.5 

3.9 

14.0 

16.5 

4600 

6145 

Manufacturer  _ _ 

9.1 

3.0 

3.1 

14.0 

15.0 

7670 

5653 

Manufacturer  

9.3 

40 

3.6 

14.0 

16.1 

7670 

6748 

Manufacturer  

10.2 

4.0 

4.0 

14.0 

14.8 

Sims  Milling  Company,  Frankfort,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  

Wheat  Bran  

Southwestern  Milling  Company,  Inc., 
The,  Kansas  City,  Mo. 

Pure  Wheat  Bran 

Star  Milling  Company,  The, 

Aurora,  Ind. 

Bran  

Star  Milling  Company,  Shoals,  Ind. 

Star  Wheat  Bran 

St.  Joe  Milling  Company,  St.  Joe,  Ind. 
St.  Joe’s  Wheat  Bran 

Street  Milling  Company,  J., 

Laporte,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  

Suckow  Company,  Franklin,  Ind. 

“Perfection”  Wheat  Bran 

“Perfection”  Wheat  Bran 

Thornburg  Milling  & Elevator 
Company,  Martinsville,  Ind. 

Bran  

Timbrook  & Hursh,  Auburn,  Ind. 

Auburn  Roller  Mills  Wheat  Bran 

Auburn  Roller  Mills  Wheat  Bran 

Auburn  Roller  Mills  Wheat  Bran 

Tresselt  & Sons,  C.,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind. 
Wheat  Bran  

Tuttle  & Company,  R., 

Columbia  City,  Ind. 

Perfection  Bran  

Perfection  Bran  

Perfection  Bran  

Ulrich  & Son,  Levi,  Greensboro,  Ind. 
Bran  

Valentine  & Valentine,  Franklin,  Ind. 
Wheat  Bran  

Wakarusa  Milling  Company, 

Wakarusa.  Ind. 

Wakarusa  Wheat  Bran 

Wakarusa  Wheat  Bran 

Witmer  Grain  Company,  Grabill,  Ind. 
Wheat  Bran  

Woodburn  Elevator  & Milling  Company 
The.  Woodburn,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  

Ziliak  & Schafer  Milling  Company, 
Haubstadt.  Tnd. 

Pure  Wheat  Bran 

Pure  Wheat  Bran 


32 


TABLE  IV.  Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 


WHEAT  BRAN  AND  SCREENINGS 

Acme-Evans  Company, 

Indianapolis,  Tnd. 

Acme  Bran  and  Screenings 


Acme  Bran  and  Screenings 
Acme  Bran  and  Screenings 

Acme  Bran  and  Screenings 


Akin-Erskine  Milling  Company, 
Evansville,  Ind. 

Winter  Wheat  Bran  & Mill  Run 

Wheat  Screeninge 

Winter  Wheat  Bran  & Mill  Run 
Wheat  Screeninge 


Ashbrook  Company,  The  J.  S., 

Mattoon,  111. 

Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings  8 

Atkinson  Milling  Company, 

Minneapolis,  Minn. 

t+Wheat  Bran  with  Screenings 


Badenoch  Company,  J.  J.,  Chicago,  111. 
J.  J.  Badenoch  Co’s  Wheat  Bran  with 
Ground  Screenings  not  exceeding 

Mill  Run  9 

J.  J.  Badenoch  Co’s  Wheat  Bran  with 
Ground  Screenings  not  exceeding 
Mill  Run  10  


7159 


7159 


8530 


8199 


6219 


6219 


Bartlett  Company,  The  J.  E., 

Jackson,  Mich. 

Wheat  Bran  with  Screenings 6813 

Bernet,  Craft  & Kauffman  Milling 
Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Mt.  Carmel  Bran  and  Screenings 551s 

Mt.  Carmel  Bran  and  Screenings 5518 


Big  Diamond  Mills  Company, 
Minneapolis,  Minn. 

“Big  Diamond  Bran”  and  Screenings 

“Big  Diamond  Bran”  and  Screenings.. 
“Big  Diamond  Bran”  and  Screenings.. 

Billman  & Sons,  O.  H.,  Shelbyville,  Ind. 
Shelby  Wheat  Bran  and  Unground 
Wheat  Screenings 


Boonville  Milling  Company, 

Boonville,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  & Screenings  11 
Wheat  Bran  & Scvreenings  

Bridgeton  Milling  Company, 
Bridgeton,  Ind. 

Bran  & Ground  Screenings 

Brook  Flour  & Feed  Mill,  The, 

Brook,  Ind. 

ffRising  Sun  Bran  and  Ground  Screen- 
ings — 


ft  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished 


7069 

7069 

7060 


6546 


2842 

2842 


8177 


8937 


imber 

Crude 

Crude 

a 

.0 

0) 

fat 

per  cent. 

protein 
per  cent. 

C 

Sample  secured  from 

R <D 

*S  ^ 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

5958 

Portland  Equity  Exchange, 
Portland  ...  ... 

7.8 

3.5 

3.6 

15.5 

14.9 

7140 

Farmers  Supply  Co.,  Spencer... 
Thorntown  Grain  Co., 
Thorntown 

9.5 

3.5 

3.5 

15.5 

15.6 

7340 

10.7 

3.5 

4.0 

15.5 

15.0 

8132 

Wolfram  Grain  Co.,  Brownsburg 

8.4 

3.5 

4.0 

15.5 

16J 

6900 

Chas.  W.  Brizius  Co.,  Newburgh 

9.2 

3.9 

4.0 

14.0 

15.0 

7833 

Manufacturers  

8.9 

3.9 

3.7 

14.0 

15.8 

7462 

I.  Bunch,  Linton 

9.2 

4.0 

4.2 

13.0 

17.6 

5360 

Hurst  & Co.,  Indianapolis 

9.0 

4.0 

4.6 

13.0 

15.8 

7525 

J.  C.  Barrett,  South  Bend 

9.1 

4.0 

4.4 

14.5 

17.2 

7562 

Cash  Flour  & Feed  Store, 

South  Bend 

8.9 

4.0 

4.2 

14.5 

16.4 

6513 

J.  Keller  & Co.,  LaOtto 

10.2 

3.0 

5.2 

14.0 

14.8 

6048 

E.  H.  Marlott,  Attica 

8.7 

3.5 

4.4 

14.3 

16.5 

7732. 

C'rabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 
Crawfordsville 

8.3 

3.5 

4.0 

14.3 

16.2 

5710 

J.  H.  Menke.  Richmond 

9.5 

4.0 

4.7 

14.0 

14.6 

6249 

J.  H.  Menke,  Richmond 

9.6 

4 0 

4.9 

14.0 

14.4 

7910 

J.  H.  Menke,  Richmond 

8.6 

4.0 

5.1 

14.0 

14.7 

6980' 

Manufacturers  

9.6 

3.0 

3.8 

14.0 

16.3 

6895 

Manufacturer  

8.8 

3.7 

4.0 

14.0 

14.4 

7883 

Manufacturer  

9.1 

3.7 

3.9 

14.0 

14.9 

7627 

Manufacturer  __  ... 

10.2 

3.8 

3.6 

13.0 

14.8 

7777  1 

G.  E.  Vest,  Brook 

9.6 

3.0 

4.1 

12.0 

14.7 

,T  , , _ _ 10  Not  tagged.  Middlings  present.  Withdrawn 

a Labels  furnished.  Middlings  present  11  Corn  bran  present.  Used  by  owner 

8 Withdrawn.  Middlings  present 


33 


TABLE  iV.— -Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Number 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

a 

.2 

Sample  secured  from 

8*S 

Label 

Official 

0)  o 
ft1-1 

GQ 

G 

Moistui 

per  cen 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

1 Guar- 

| anteed 

Found 

Brose,  Geo.,  Evansville,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  & Screenings 

2942 

7884 

Brose  & Arnold,  Evansville,  Ind. 

Bran  and  Screenings 

2257 

7835 

Burge- Thomas  Milling  Company, 

Marion,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  and  Wheat  Screenings 

6440 

6365 

Butler  & Company,  Edw.  J., 

Chicago,  111. 

ftWheat  Bran  and  Screenings 

8346 

5951 

Chicago  Heights  Oil  M’f’g.  Company, 
Chicago,  111. 

“Prize”  Wheat  Bran  and  Screenings— 

7005 

6072 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Company, 

Lafayette,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  _ . _ 

2468 

7736 

Deutsch  & Sickert  Company, 

Milwaukee,  Wis. 

Wheat  Bran  with  Screenings — _ 

7259 

7735 

Dickinson  Company,  The  Albert, 

Chicago,  111. 

Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings 

not  exceeding  Mill  Run 

5841 

6353 

Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings 

not  exceeding  Mill  Run 

5841 

7324 

Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings 

not  exceeding  Mill  Run  

5841 

7391 

Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings 

not  exceeding  Mill  Run 

5841 

7629 

Donmeyer  Gardner  Company, 

Peoria,  111. 

Wheat  Bran  with  Screenings  not  to 

Exceed  Mill  Run  12 

6208 

7203 

•Wheat  Bran  with  Screenings  not  to 

Exceed  Mill  Run  _ 

82^4 

Eagle  Roller  Mill  Company, 

New  Ulm,  Minn. 

Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings 

not  exceeding  Mill  Run  __  

7105 

6234 

Eckhart  Milling  Company,  B.  A., 

Chicago,  111. 

Bran  and  Screenings 

Bran  and  Screenings __ 

6194 

6194 

7241 

7290 

Edinger  & Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Wheat  Bran  & Wheat  Screenings..  . 

7205 

: 5836 

Wheat  Bran  & Wheat  Screenings 

Wheat  Bran  & Wheat  Screenings 

7205 

7205 

7205 

! 0734 
8032 
8365 

Wheat  Bran  & Wheat  Screenings 

Emison,  J.  & S.,  Vincennes,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  ...  

Mixed  Feed  ...  ... 

4237 

4237 

8006 

8012 

Empire  Milling  Company, 

Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Empire  Milling  Co.,  Wheat  Bran  with 
Ground  Screenings  not  exceeding 

Mill  Run  

7393 

6263 

Manufacturer  

9.0 

3.2 

3.8 

13.5 

14.8 

Manufacturer  

9.4 

3.7 

4.2 

14.0 

16.4 

Thomas  Milling  Co.,  Marion 

9.6 

3.1 

3.5 

14.0 

14.7 

Orabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Reynolds  

9.2 

4.0 

4.5 

14.0 

15.2 

Sheldon  & Wiler,  Orland 

10.6 

3.5 

4.4 

14.0 

15.4 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Crawfordsville  

8.1 

3.7 

4.0 

14.0 

14.8 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Crawfordsville  

8.3 

4.0 

5.5 

13.0 

16.4 

McMahan  Bros.,  Valparaiso 

8.9 

4.0 

5.1 

14.5 

15.4 

Farmers  Elevator  Co., 

Monticello  . 

9.3 

4.0 

5.2 

14.5 

15.7 

R.  C.  McNaughton,  Ray 

10.1 

4.0 

4.6 

14.5 

14.7 

Phillips  & Ross  Grain  Co., 

Rosed  ale  

10.0 

4.0 

5.0 

14.5 

14.0 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Lafayette  - 

9.5 

4.0 

4.4 

14.0 

16.2 

Montmorenci  Elevator  Co., 
Mcntmorenci  ..  .._  _ . 

9.2 

... 

4.6 

— 

15.6 

J.  C.  Phillips,  Star  City.  ..  . 

9.9 

3.4 

4.7 

14.0 

15.4 

W.  C.  Hall  Milling  Co.,  Brazil.. 

9.5 

4.0 

4.9 

14.0 

14.5 

Wolfe  & Bevington, 
Shipshewanna  _ 

8.5 

4.0 

4.1 

14.0 

14.8 

C.  H.  Ashworth,  Crandall 

10.5 

4.0 

4.2 

14.5 

14.9 

O.  L.  Cauble,  Pekin 

10.1 

4.0 

4.6 

14.5 

17.0 

Farmers  Feed  Store,  Borden 

8.8 

4.0 

4.3 

14.5 

16.1 

Marengo  Milling  Co.,  Marengo.. 

8.2 

4.0 

4.4 

14.5 

16.5 

Chas.  H.  Steel,  Princeton...  . 

8.0 

3 0 

3.5 

14.0 

14.2 

Salem  Milling  Co.,  Salem ... 

8.0 

3.0 

3.7 

14.0 

14.7 

Hamlet  Grain  Co.,  Hamlet 

9.1 

4.0 

4.9 

14.0 

14.8 

* Not  tagged  12  Wheat  middlings  present 

ft  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished 


34 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein  | 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

T> 

C 

3 

fa 

Everett-Aughenbaugh  & Company, 

Waseca,  Minn. 

E-A-C'O  Wheat  Bran  with  Ground 

Screenings  

6024 

5377 

Vandalia  Elevator  Co.,  Colfax.. 

10.4 

3.0 

4.6 

14.0 

15.5 

E-A-CO  Wheat  Bran  with  Ground 

Screenings  

6024 

5485 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Crawfordsville  

10.9 

3.0 

4.7 

14.0 

15.3 

Eeed  Products  Milling  Company, 

Chicago,  111. 

Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings 

8625 

7117 

W.  J.  Loy,  Columbus 

9.5 

3.0 

4.8 

14.0 

15.2 

Fuhrer-Ford  Milling  Company, 

Mt.  Vernon,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  and  Screenings 

2385 

7894 

Fuhrer-Ford  Milling  Co., 

New  Harmony 

8.7 

3.7 

4.1 

14.0 

15.3 

Garland  Milling  Company, 

Greensburg,  Ind. 

7279 

6978 

Manufacturer  

8.8 

3.7 

4.1 

15.0 

15.4 

Garland  Bran  & Screenings 

7279 

7315 

J.  W.  Linkhart  & Son, 

North  Vernon  

9.8 

3.7 

4.0 

15.0 

15.9 

7279 

7856 

Manufacturer  

8.7 

3.7 

3.5 

15.0 

14.7 

Goshen  Milling  Company,  Goshen,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed 

2335 

6015 

Manufacturer  __ 

8.7 

4.0 

4.3 

14.0 

14.7 

Mixed  Feed  _ -- 

2335 

6521 

Manufacturer  ... 

10.8 

4.0 

4.4 

14.0 

14.7 

Mixed  Feed 

2335 

8127 

Manufacturer  

9.3 

4.0 

4.4 

14.0 

15.8 

Hales  & Edwards  Company, 

Chicago,  111. 

Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings 

(not  exceding  Mill  Run)  

7509 

6859 

Hartman  & Dotterer,  Bluffton. 

10.3 

3.0 

4.7 

14.0 

15.2 

Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings 

(not  exceding  Mill  Run) 

7509 

7240 

W.  C.  Hall  Milling  Co.,  Brazil.. 

9.3 

3.0 

4.7 

14.0 

14.8 

Haynes  Milling  Company,  The, 

Portland,  Ind. 

“Haynes  Mixed  Feed” 

7893 

5954 

Mn.nnfRr>t.nrp.r 

8.1 

3.5 

3.5 

15.0 

15.0 

Home  Mill  & Grain  Company, 

Mt.  Vernon,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed 

3237 

6889 

Manufacturer 

9.0 

3.2 

3.5 

14.4 

15.7 

Mixed  Feed 

3237 

7975 

Manufacturer 

8.6 

3.2 

3.7 

14.4 

16.2 

Mixed  Feed 

3237 

7970 

Sunlight  Milling  Co.,  Mt.  Vernon 

8.6 

3.2 

3.2 

14.4 

15.8 

Hornung,  J.  M.,  Greensburg,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  &,  Screenings 

2577 

7872 

Manufacturer 

8.5 

3.7 

3.7 

14.1 

15.6 

Hubbard  Milling  Company, 

Mankota,  Minn. 

Flakey  Bran  & Ground  Screenings 

5446 

7011 

Berry  Bros.,  Lynn __ 

10.6 

4.8 

5.3 

15.0 

15.6 

Hunter-Robinson-Wenz  Milling 

Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

ttBran  and  Screenings 

5219 

6969 

C.  F.  Johnson  & Son,  Paoli 

9.0 

4.0 

4.6 

14.5 

16.1 

Bran  and  Screenings  

5219 

6971 

C.  F.  Johnson  & Son,  Paoli 

9.0 

4.0 

4.5 

14.5 

15.7 

Bran  and  Screenings 

5219 

7073 

Holton  Milling  Co.,  Holton 

10.5 

4.0 

4.0 

14.5 

16.0 

Kansas  Flour  Mills  Company,  The, 

Wichita,  Kansas 

Wheat  Bran  & Screenings 

7885 

7003 

Putmann  Hardware  Co., 

New  Pnint. 

10.3 

4.2 

4.7 

14.7 

15.6 

Kaw  Milling  Company,  The, 

Topeka,  Kansas. 

Wheat  Bran  and  Screenings  . 

0702 

6292 

Thos  Fishpl*  Anderson 

9.8 

4.0 

4.2 

17.0 

16.5 

Kaw  Kaw  Bran  & Scourings  

8305 

6324 

A.  C.  Heitschmidt, 

Michigan  City  

9.2 

3.5 

4.2 

15.5 

16.5 

Kaw  Kaw  Bran  & Scourings 

8005 

6876 

Clover  Leaf  Milling  Co., 

Kokomo  

9.1 

3.5 

4.1 

15.5 

16.3 

Kaw  Kaw  Bran  & Scourings 

8305 

7514 

Sturgeon  Grain  & Coal  Co., 

Mnncie  

9.4 

3.5 

4.0 

15.5 

16.7 

ft  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished 


35 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

percent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

*5 

5E 

O 

£ 

.2 

*■£ 

V 

o n 

CD 

£ 

1 r a 

1-1  ^ 
rt  « 

O « 

73 

C 

3 

0 

fa 

1 'O 
si  « 
c< 

0 § 

73 

S3 

S3 

O 

fa 

Keene,  A.  C.,  Elkhart,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  & Ground  Screenings 

7361 

7551 

Manufacturer  

10.6 

3.5 

3.7 

13.5 

14.4 

Kemper  Mill  & Elevator  Company, 

Kansas  City,  Mo. 

Anchor  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings. 

6030 

5849 

M.  Schuppert  & Son,  Depauw... 

9.3 

4.0 

4.5 

14.5 

16.1 

Anchor  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings. 

6030 

7838 

Fisher  Hay  & Grain  Co., 

Evansville  

9.3 

4.0 

4.1 

14.5 

16.6 

Loughry  Bros.  Milling  & Grain 

Company,  Monticello,  Ind. 

1946 

7329 

11.3 

3.7 

4.1 

14.0 

14.0 

Louisville  Milling  Company, 

Louisville,  Ky. 

Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings 

not  exceeding  Mill  Run 

6175 

5756 

Charlestown  Milling  Co., 

Charlestown  .... 

9.5 

4.0 

4.6 

14.5 

14.7 

Lyon  & Greenleaf  Company, 

Ligonier,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  

8217 

7296 

Middlebury  Grain  Co., 

Middlebury  __  

9.7 

3.8 

4.1 

14.0 

17.1 

Mixed  Feed 

8217 

7506 

Manufacturer 

9.9 

3.8 

3.9 

14.0 

15.1 

Marshall  Milling  Company, 

1 

Marshall,  Minn. 

Wheat  Bran  with  Screenings  not  ex- 

8627 

7529 

Thosle  Fisher,  Anderson 

8.6 

4.0 

5.2 

14.5 

15.4 

ceeding  Mill  Run _ 

Mayflower  Mills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind. 

Mayflower  Bran  and  Screenings. _ _ __ 

6715 

6567 

Valentine  & Valentine,  Franklin 

9.6 

3.8 

4.8 

14.0 

15.4 

Mayflower  Bran  and  Screenings 

6715 

6863 

Finkle  Milling  Co.,  Warren 

9.8 

3.8 

4.5 

14.0 

15.0 

Mayflower  Bran  and  Screenings 

6715 

8104 

Farmers  Elevator  Co.,  Laketon 

8.4 

3.8 

4.2 

14.0 

14.8 

Mosher  & Company,  A.  B., 

Columbia  City,  Ind. 

tfWheat  Bran  & Screenings _ 

8481 

6164 

J.  L.  Keisler  & Sons, 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Columbia  City 

10.5 

3.0 

5.2 

13.0 

15.4 

tfWheat  Bran  and  Screenings 

5504 

7760 

B TT  Hea.trm  Tndiannpnlis 

9.2 

4.0 

4.0 

14.0 

17.4 

Wheat  Bran  and  Screenings 

5504 

7869 

W T Ruling  St.  Paul 

9lo 

4.0 

4!2 

14^0 

17.2 

National  Feed  Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Wheat  Bran  and  Screenings __ 

4650 

6557 

Griffin  &■,  Bundy  Spiceland 

9.0 

3.0 

4.3 

14.0 

15.6 

New  Prague  Flouring  Mill  Company, 

New  Prague,  Minn. 

Seal  of  Minnesota  Wheat  Bran  with 

Ground  Screenings  not  exceeding 

Mill  Run 

7907 

7276 

Cash  Flour  & Feed  Store, 

Seal  of  Minnesota  Wheat  Bran  with 

South  Bend 

8.7 

3.0 

4.9 

13.3 

15.8 

Ground  Screenings  not  exceeding 

Mill  Run . ._ 

7907 

7571 

Hoosier  Wholesale  Grocery  Co., 

Seal  of  Minnesota  Wheat  Bran  with 

South  Bend  

8.7 

3.0 

5.2 

13.3 

15.4 

Ground  Screenings  not  exceeding 

Mill  Run  

7907 

7774 

McCray  Grain  Co.,  Kentland 

9.3 

3.0 

5.5 

13.3 

15.6 

Noblesville  Milling  Company, 

Noblesville,  Ind. 

N.  M.  Co’s  Wheat  Bran  & Screenings. 

5252 

5728 

A.  Smith  & Co.,  Sheridan 

7.8 

37 

4.3 

14.5 

18.6 

N.  M.  Co’s  Wheat  Bran  & Screenings. 

5252 

6231 

W.  G.  Sweet,  Royal  Center 

9.9 

3.7 

4.1 

14.5 

15.0 

N.  M.  Co’s  Wheat  Bran  & Screenings. 

5252 

7522 

O.  H.  Ellis,  Muncie 1 

9.0 

3.7 

4.5 

14.5 

15.4 

Norton  & Company,  Willis, 

Topeka,  Kansas. 

tfWheat  Bran  & Screenings 

6478 

7591 

C.  E.  Bash  & Co.,  Huntington. 

8.7 

3.5 

4.0 

14.5 

18.0 

Ossian  Roller  Mills,  Ossian,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  and  Ground  Wheat 

Screenings  . _.  . 

6400 

6688 

Manufacturer  

9.9 

3.5 

3.8 

13.5 

14.0 

Wheat  Bran  and  Ground  Wheat 

Screenings  _ 

7961 

Manufacturer  ...  

8.7 

3.5 

3.8 

13.5 

14.1 

ft  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished 


36 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 

protein 

percent. 

3 

'3 

E 

o 

g 

_o 

o 

t)Q 

a1-1 

QQ 

G 

i'S 

o § 

T3 

G 

3 

O 

O rt 

1 

3 

£ 

Pancost  Milling  Company,  Elkhart,  Ind. 

Bran  & Screenings 

6886 

7553 

Manufacturer 

8.7 

3.0 

3.6 

14.0 

15.4 

Paoli  Milling  Company,  The,  Paoli,  Ind. 

Clear  Mill  Peed 

3019 

8094 

Manufacturer 

8.3 

3.0 

4.5 

12.0 

15.2 

Peru  Milling  Company,  The,  Peru,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  & Screenings 

17 

6612 

Manufacturer 

8.6 

3.1 

3.9 

14.5 

13.7 

Wheat  Bran  & Screenings 

17 

8002 

Manufacturer 

8i4 

3.1 

4.1 

14^5 

13  j 

Phoenix  Flour  Mill,  Evansville,  Ind. 

Bran  & Screenings 

2252 

7831 

Manufacturer 

8.9 

4.0 

3.7 

15.0 

16.5 

Pillsbury  Flour  Mills  Company, 

Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Pillsbury’s  Wheat  Bran  with  Ground 

Screenings  not  exceeding  Mill  Run—. 

7133 

6233 

J.  C.  Phillips,  Star  City 

9.6 

4.0 

5.1 

13.0 

14.2 

Pillsbury’s  Wheat  Bran  with  Ground 

Screenings  not  exceeding  Mill  Run— 

7133 

8133 

Wolfram  Grain  Co., 

Brownsburg  

8.6 

4.0 

5.2 

13.0 

15.5 

Plant  Milling  Company,  Geo.  P., 

St.  Louis,  Mo. 

(PI  Bran  & Screenings 

4753 

7053 

Earlv  & Daniel  Co.,  Aurora 

10.9 

3.0 

3.1 

15.0 

16.5 

Princeton  Milling  Company,  The, 

Princeton,  Ind. 

ttStar  Feed  

8618 

8813 

A.  L.  Rudolph,  Palmyra 

9.1 

3.5 

3.9 

13.5 

15.8 

Red  Mill,  The,  R.  F.  D.,  Fairland,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed 

2601 

7804 

Manufacturers 

9.8 

3.8 

3.9 

14.0 

16.4 

Schultz  Bros.,  Elberfeld,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  and  Screenings 

3924 

6933 

Manufacturers 

9.0 

3.5 

4.1 

13.5 

14.0 

Sheffield-King  Milling  Company, 

Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Fancy  “Brodflake” 

7602 

7372 

McMahan  Bros.,  Valparaiso 

10.2 

3.5 

4.6 

13.5 

14.7 

Sparks  Milling  Company, 

Terre  Haute,  Ind. 

Wabash  Bran  and  Screenings 

2775 

5901 

Salem  Milling  Co.,  Salem 

8.8 

3.5 

4.3 

14.0 

14.7 

Wabash  Bran  and  Screenings 

2775 

8297 

Ed.  Davis,  Ramsey 

8.3 

3.5 

3.8 

14.0 

14.4 

Stanard-Tilton  Milling  Company, 

St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Wheat  Bran  & Screenings 

5257 

7481 

B.  I.  Holser  & Co.,  Walkerton. 

7.2 

3.0 

4.2 

14.0 

16.6 

Star  & Crescent  Milling  Company, 

Chicago,  111. 

Star  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings 

not  Exceeding  Mill  Run 

5377 

7997 

Simon  J.  Carroll,  Bunker  Hill— 

9.0 

4.0 

4.3 

15.0 

15.2 

ttStar  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings 

not  Exceeding  Mill  Run 

5377 

8382 

F.  O.  Underhill,  Greensfork 

8.7 

4.0 

5.1 

15.0 

16.6 

Trow  Company,  W.,  Madison,  Ind. 

Trow’s  Bran  and  Screenings 

1973 

5455 

Manufacturer 

9.8 

3.5 

4.5 

14.0 

14.8 

Trow’s  Bran  and  Screenings 

1973 

8148 

C.  G.  Hunger,  Madison  _ 

9.2 

3.5 

4.2 

14.0 

15.1 

Valier  & Spies  Milling  Company, 

St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Valier’s  Wheat  Bran  with  Ground 

Wheat  Screeninge 

6156 

6630 

Valier  & Spies  Milling  Co., 

Valier’s  Wheat  Bran  with  Ground 

Terre  Haute  

8.9 

3.5 

4.4 

14.5 

17.2 

Wheat  Screeninge 

6156 

6674 

Kewanna  Butter  & Produce 

ttValier’s  Wheat  Bran  with  Ground 

Co.,  Kewanna  __  

8.6 

3.5 

4.6 

14.5 

17.3 

Wheat  Screeninge  

6150 

7173 

Bloomfield  Mill  & Elevator  Co., 

Valier’s  Wheat  Bran  with  Ground 

Bloomfield  ___  

10.2 

3.5 

4.6 

14.5 

17.5 

Wheat  Screeninge  

6156 

7528 

Ola  Chambers,  Anderson _ 

9.7 

3.5 

4.6 

14  5 

17.3 

tf  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished 


37 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


— 

Number 

Crude 

Crude 

fat 

pruteiu 

o 

Sample  secured  from 

per  cent. 

per  cent. 

Label 

Official 

o 

o n 
o< 

QD 

a a 
® « 
o §J 
S a 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Wagner-White  Company,  Inc., 

Jackson,  Mich. 

Bran  with  Screenings  not  to  Exceed 

IVf'll  Run 

8854 

8247 

Fremont  Co-operative  Assoc., 
Fremont  

8.0 

5.0 

5.3 

14.0 

15.4 

Washbum-Crosby  Company, 

Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Washburn-Crosby  Co’s  Wheat  Bran 

with  Ground  Screenings  not  ex- 

5464 

7488 

Vandalia  Elevator  Co.,  Colfax. 

8.6 

4.0 

5.7 

14.5 

14.5 

Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings 

not  exceeding  Mill  Run 

7229 

5506 

Studebaker  Grain  & Seed  Co., 

Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings 

Van  Rnren 

8.1 

4.0 

4.1 

13.0 

15.8 

7229 

5606 

George  N.  Gard,  Schererville  _ . 

9.0 

4.0 

4.9 

13.0 

13.9 

ttWheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings 

7229 

5613 

McCray  Grain  Co.,  Kentland 

10.3 

4.0 

4.2 

13.0 

14.8 

Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings 

not  exceeding  Mill  Run  — 

7229 

6228 

Simon  J.  Carroll,  Royal  Center. 

9.8 

4.0 

4.9 

13.0 

14.5 

Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings 

7229 

7937 

.J.  S.  Hazelrigg,  Straughn  

9.7 

4.0 

5.4 

13.0 

15.8 

Wheat  Bran  with  Ground  Screenings 

not  exceeding  Mill  Run 

7229 

8108 

Farmers  Elevator  Co., 

South  Whitley 

8.2 

4.0 

5.5 

13.0 

15.4 

Western  Flour  Mill  Company, 

Davenport,  Iowa 

Black  Hawk  Bran  with  Ground 

Screenings  not  to  Exceed  Mill  Run— 

7895 

5927 

Orleans  Mill  & Elevator  Co., 

tfBlack  Hawk  Bran  with  Ground 

Orleans  . 

8.8 

3.0 

4.4 

13.3 

15.7 

Screenings  not  to  Exceed  Mill  Run- 
Black  Hawk  Bran  with  Ground 

7895 

6004 

Galbreath  & Schriner,  Cayuga.. 

10.0 

3.0 

4.7 

13.3 

15.4 

Screenings  not  to  Exceed  Mill  Run- 
Black  Hawk  Bran  with  Ground 

7895 

6949 

Nixon  & VanDeventer,  Attica. 

9.1 

3.0 

4.8 

13.3 

16.0 

Screenings  not  to  Exceed  Mill  Run— 

7895 

7608 

D.  R.  Murray,  Clinton 

8.9 

3.0 

5.8 

13.3 

17.1 

Wright,  John  H.,  Clinton,  Ind. 

Venus  Bran  & Screenings 

7250 

7238 

Manufacturer 

9.6 

3.5 

4.7 

14.0 

16.0 

Yoder,  Marion  J.,  Middlebury,  Ind. 
ttWheat  Bran  & Ground  Wheat  Screen- 

ings __  __ 

8784 

7437 

Manufacturer  _ 

8.8 

3.7 

4.2 

14.0 

13.1 

Wheat  Bran  & Ground  Wheat  Screen- 

ings   

8784 

8120 

Ma.ri.nn  J.  Ynder,  Goshen 

8.9 

3.7 

4.1 

14.0 

13.9 

Ziliak  & Schafer  Milling  Company, 
Haubstadt,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  & Screenings 

8597 

7983 

Ziliak  & Schafer  Milling  Co., 

Evansville 

7.0 

4.0 

4.3 

14.0 

14.6 

STANDARD  WHEAT  MIDDLINGS 

OR  SHORTS 

Acme  Milling  Company,  The, 

Aurora,  Ind. 

Middlings  

968 

5452 

7661 

Manufacturer 

10.1 

3.9 

5.0 

14.2 

16.3 

Middlings  

968 

Manufacturer 

10.0 

3.9 

4.8 

14.2 

16.1 

Akron  Milling  Company,  The, 

Akron,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  

2795 

8054 

Manufacturer 

10.1 

4.0 

2.8 

14.0 

13.4 

Amboy  Milling  Company,  Amboy,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  _ 

6088 

6872 

Manufacturer 

10.2 

3.5 

3.8 

13.5 

15.9 

Anchor  Milling  Company, 

Rochester,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  

3747 

5371 

C.  L.  Dilley  Co.,  Logansport 

Manufacturer  

9.9 

4.0 

4.6 

14.0 

15.4 

Wheat  Middlings  

3747 

5702 

9.0 

4.0 

4.3 

14.0 

14.3 

Wheat  Middlings  

3747 

8113 

Manufacturer 

11.7 

4.0 

4.7 

14.0 

15.4 

Angola  Flouring  Mills,  Angola,  Ind. 

Angola  Flouring  Mills  Middlings 

1097 

7389 

Manufacturer 

10.5 

4.0 

5.4 

14.0 

18.1 

Angola  Flouring  Mills  Middlings 

1097 

8261 

Manufacturer  __ 

9.6 

4.0 

4.8 

14.0  1 

15.9 

T Before  registration  tt  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished 


TABLE  IV.— Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Number 

Crude 

fat 

Crude 

ss 

protein  j 

Label 

o 

Sample  secured  from 

per  cent. 

per  cent. 

73 

o 

0)Q 

~ a 
5 v 

bn  O 

, T3 
u ^ 

T3 

Si 

i r° 

s * 

’O 

c 

£ 

o 

CD 

£ 

*3  ^ 

l£ 

1 ss 
O <8 

1 

o § 

§ 

fe 

Barry,  Russell,  Crandall,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  _ . _ _ 

8422 

8315 

Crandall  Elouring  Mill,  Crandall 

10.5 

3.0 

3.8 

13.0 

14.5 

Bergenroth  Bros.,  Troy,  Ind. 

Middlings  

2025 

8221 

Manufacturer  . 

10.1 

4.0 

4.2 

15.0 

15.4 

Berlien  Mills,  Angola,  R.  F.  D.,  Ind. 

/ 

Wheat  Middlings  

7515 

8259 

Manufacturer 

10.0 

3.0 

3.6 

12.0 

14.7 

Berne  Milling  Company,  Berne,  Ind. 

Wheat  Shorts  13 

8018 

6048 

Manufacturer 

11.6 

2.3 

1.2 

13.0 

9.9 

Wheat  Shorts  

8018 

7428 

Manufacturer 

10.7 

2.3 

2.8 

13.0 

12.9 

Billman  & Sons,  C.  H.,  Shelbyville,  Ind. 

Shelby  Shorts  _ 

4043 

7799 

Cutsinger  & Thompson, 
Shelbyville 

9.3 

2.0 

5.2 

12.0 

17.2 

Bluffton  Milling  Company, 

Bluffton,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  

8017 

6194 

Manufacturer 

9.9 

2.5 

4.2 

13.0 

15.7 

Bridgeton  Milling  Company, 

Bridgeton,  Ind. 

Wheat  Shorts  . .... 

7717 

7626 

Manufacturer  

11.9 

2.0 

4.0 

13.0 

15.6 

Brizius  Company,  The  Chas.  W., 

Newburgh,  Ind. 

Eagle  Wheat  Shorts  or  Middlings 

7104 

7982 

Manufacturer 

9.4 

3.8 

4.6 

14.0 

17.8 

Brose  & Arnold,  Evansville,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings 

7491 

7875 

Manufacturer 

9.5 

4.0 

4.4 

14.0 

16.5 

Browning  & Company,  Alexandria,  Ind. 

Brownings  Shorts  _ _ ___ 

396 

6066 

Chas.  F.  Naber  & Co., 

Alexandria 

11.4 

4.0 

4.5 

14.0 

15.5 

Brownings  Shorts 

396 

7579 

Chas.  F.  Naber  & Co., 

Alexandria  

10.0 

4.0 

4.1 

14.0 

15.8  j 

Brudi  & Company,  Jos., 

New  Haven,  Ind. 

Middlings  

2246 

6026 

Maumee  Valley  Mills, 

New  Haven 

10.4 

2.8 

4.4 

13.1 

14.3  il 

Middlings 

2246 

8173 

Manufacturer 

10.3 

2.8 

4.4 

13.1 

15.9 

Burge-Thomas  Miling  Company, 

Marion,  Ind. 

Shorts  

4728 

6363 

Thomas  Milling  Co.,  Marion 

G.  W.  Jones,  Upland  

9.5 

4.0 

4.7 

14.0 

14.7 

ttShorts 

4728 

7650 

9.3 

4.0 

4.6 

14.0 

14.8 

Burrell  & Morgan,  Elkhart,  Ind. 

Middlings  

254 

6495 

Manufacturer  

10.4 

4.0 

4.6 

14.0 

14.9 

Middlings 

254 

7549 

Manufacturer 

9.6 

4.0 

4.6 

14.0 

15.5 

Butler  Milling  Company,  Butler,  Ind. 

Butler  Milling  Co’s  Wheat  Middlings.. 
Wheat  Middlings 

1030 

8238 

Manufacturer 

9.4 

4.0 

4.1 

14.0 

14.2 

7082 

7385 

Manufacturer  _ 

10.6 

3.6 

3.4 

14.0 

14.3 

Carpenter,  B.  0.,  Perrysville,  Ind. 
“Wheat  Middlings”  

4712 

7669 

Manufacturer 

10.7 

2.8 

4.7 

14.0 

16.4 

Cauble,  0.  L.,  Pekin,  Ind. 

Wheat  Shorts  . 

1016 

5882 

Manufacturer 

10.3 

4.0 

4.0 

14.0 

15.1 

Cauble  & Dunlevy,  Henryville,  Ind. 

14.8 

Star  Wheat  Shorts  i* 

5826 

5870 

Manufacturer  

10.5 

3.5 

3.3 

13.5 

Champion  Roller  Milling  Company, 

Richmond,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  or  Shorts 

4700 

6251 

Manufacturer  

10.0 

4.0 

4.8 

16.0 

15.6 

Wheat  Middlings  or  Shorts 

4700 

7955 

Manufacturer  

9.6 

4.0 

4.9 

16.0 

17.0  1 

tt  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished 

13  Low  grade  flour,  small  amount  bran  present 


14  Low  grade  flour  present 


39 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 


City  Milling  Company,  Kendallville,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  

Wheat  Middlings  

City  Mills,  South  Whitley,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  

Wheat  Middlings  

Claypole,  Geo.  M.,  Sardinia,  Ind. 

Geo.  M.  Claypole’s  Wheat  Middlings.  _ 

Coal  City  Milling  Company, 

Coal  City,  Ind. 

Coal  City  Wheat  Shorts  15  

Cook  Milling  Company, 

Richmond,  R.  R.  No.  4,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  

Corydon  Milling  Company, 

Corydon,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  

Croxton,  James  W.,  Cloverdale,  Ind. 
Middlings  

Deutsch  & Sickert  Company, 

Milwaukee,  Wis. 

Pure  Wheat  Middlings  

Pure  Wheat  Middlings  16 

Pure  Wffieat  Middlings  

Pure  Wheat  Middlings  16 

Pure  Wheat  Middlings  

Pure  Wheat  Middlings  18 

Dillsboro  Milling  Company, 

Dillsboro,  Ind. 

Wheat  Shorts 

Wheat  Shorts 

Donmeyer  Gardner  & Co.,  Peoria,  111. 
•Pure  Wheat  Middlings 

Duglay  & Jones,  Churubusco,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  

Eberts  & Bro.,  North  Vernon,  Ind. 
Wheat  Shorts 

Eckhart  Milling  Company,  B.  A., 
Chicago,  111. 

Flour  Middlings  

Eesley  & Company,  Wm., 

College  Corner,  Ohio 
Wheat  Middlings  

Egloff  Milling  Company,  Vincennes,  Ind. 
Wheat  Shorts 

Enos  & Lee,  New  Albany,  Ind. 

Fancy  Middlings ... 

Fornax  Milling  Company,  Decatur,  Ind. 
•Middlings  17  


Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

6370 

6512 

Manufacturer  

11.4 

3.0 

3.9 

13.0 

14.4 

6370 

7510 

Manufacturer  

10.5 

3.0 

4.0 

13.0 

16.0 

610© 

7150 

Manufacturer  

10.8 

3.5 

4.3 

14.0 

16.2 

6106 

8073 

Manufacturer  

9.8 

3.5 

3.9 

14.0 

16.6 

2500 

5456 

Manufacturer  

11.2 

4.0 

2.8 

14.0 

13.7 

6913 

7465 

Manufacturer  

10.5 

3.5 

3.4 

14.0 

14.2 

4797 

7913 

Manufacturer  

10.3 

3.7 

3.9 

14.0 

15.7 

3305 

5846 

Manufacturers  

11.1 

4.0 

3.6 

14.0 

14.1 

246 

5960 

Manufacturer  

10.4 

3.8 

3.8 

14.0 

14.6 

5472 

7298 

Middlebury  Grain  Co., 

Middlebury  

9.2 

5.0 

5.2 

15.0 

17.0 

5472 

7395 

J.  M.  Wagner,  Roann 

10.9 

5.0 

6.0 

15.0 

15.5 

5472 

7396 

Q.  A.  Carver,  Roann  

10.1 

5.0 

5.2 

15.0 

16.5 

5472 

7505 

Geo.  Steckley,  Kendallville  

9.1 

5.0 

6.2 

15.0 

16.8 

5472 

7533 

Torktown  Lumber  Co., 

Yorktown 

9.7 

5.0 

5.4 

15.0 

16.1 

5472 

7826 

S.  M.  Heard,  Evansville 

9.2 

5.0 

6.3 

15.0 

17.4 

1008 

5413 

Manufacturers  

10.6 

4.0 

4.3 

14.0 

14.6 

1008 

7710 

Manufacturers  ...  — 

10.1 

4.0 

4.3 

14.0 

15.6 

8293 

Montmorenci  Elevator  Co., 

Montmorenci  * 

10.0 

— 

4.7 

— 

16.5 

7468 

7405 

Manufacturers  

10.3 

3.0 

3.9 

13.0 

16.1 

5413 

8209 

Manufacturers  _ 

10.5 

4.0 

4.3 

15.0 

15.9 

6195 

6226 

J.  R.  Starr,  Winamac  

9.4 

4.0 

3.9 

15.0 

16.3 

2921 

5497 

Manufacturers  

10.2 

4.0 

4.2 

14.0 

14.1 

6054 

7225 

Manufacturers  

10.0 

4.0 

3.6 

14.0 

16.4 

989 

5772 

J.  M.  Lee  & Co.,  New  Albany 

9.3 

4.0 

4.3 

16.0 

17.1 

5416 

Adolph  Marbach,  Decatur 

9.6 

4.0 

14.6 

* Not  tagged  16  Screenings  present.  Removed  from  sale. 

15  Low  grade  flour  present  Relabeled  No.  7188 

17  Not  tagged.  Wheat  bran  present 


40 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 


Fuhrer-Ford  Milling  Company, 

Mt.  Vernon,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  

Wheat  Middlings  

Wheat  Shorts 

Gaston  Roller  Mills,  Gaston,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  

Geneva  Milling  & Grain  Company, 
Geneva,  Ind. 

Shorts  & Middlings 

Globe  Mills,  The,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind. 

The  Globe  Mills  Wheat  Shorts 

The  Globe  Mills  Wheat  Shorts 

Green  Bros.  & Oldfather,  Warsaw,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  18 

Wheat  Middlings  

Hales  & Edwards  Company, 

Chicago,  111. 

Wheat  Middlings  19 

Wheat  Middlings  20 

Wheat  Middlings  21 

Hall  Milling  Company,  W.  C., 

Brazil,  Ind. 

Hall’s  Wheat  Shorts 

Hampton,  W.  D.,  Worthington,  Ind. 
Wheat  Shorts 

Haynes  Milling  Company,  The, 
Portland,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  

Hazleton  Flour  Mills;  Hazleton,  Ind. 
Wheat  Shorts 

Hering  Company,  J.,  Shelbyville,  Ind. 
Shorts  

Hibbits  Mill  Company,  Muncie,  Ind. 
Finished  Middlings  

Home  Mill  & Grain  Company, 

Mt.  Vernon,  Ind. 

Home  Mill  & Grain  C'o’s  Wheat  Ship- 
stuff  

Hornung,  J.  M.,  Greensburg,  Ind. 
Middlings  

Huntington  Mill  Company, 

Huntington,  Ind. 

Shorts  

Shorts  

Hurn  Milling  Company,  W.  D., 

New  Salisbury,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  

Wheat  Middlings  

Iroquois  Roller  Mills,  Rensselaer,  Ind. 
Wheat  Middlings  


Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 

protein 

percent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

^ Found 

4682 

6803 

Manufacturer  

9.3 

3.5 

4.2 

14.0 

15.3 

4682 

7979 

Manufacturer  

9.5 

3.5 

4.2 

14.0 

16.1  . 

8794 

7974 

Fuhrer-Ford  Milling  Co., 

New  Harmony 

8.3 

4.0 

5.4 

14.0 

18.1 

5500 

6335 

Manufacturer  

10.5 

2.0 

4.4 

12.0 

16.5 

7527 

6035 

Manufacturer  

10.5 

2.5 

2.5 

13.0 

13.8, 

426 

5517 

Manufacturer  _ 

10.0 

4.0 

5.4 

14.0 

16.3 

426 

8190 

Manufacturer  

10.1 

4.0 

3.4 

14.0 

14.6 

8369 

7168 

Manufacturer  

10.2 

4.0 

5.6 

14.0 

16.3 1 

8069 

8062 

Manufacturer  ___ 

9.1 

4.0 

5.4 

14.0 

17.7 1 

8476 

6910 

Fred  Holtz,  Williamsport 

8.8 

3.0 

5.0 

15.0 

16.1 1 

8476 

0998 

Morocco  Feed  & Grist  Mill, 

Morocco  — 

10.3 

3.0 

4.9 

15.0 

15.8 

8476 

7237 

Smith  Grocery  Co.,  Clinton. 

9.8 

3.0 

4.5 

15.0 

15.8 

5023 

6668 

Manufacturers  

11.1 

2.0 

4.4 

13.0 

12.0 

2220 

7178 

Manufacturer  .. 

10.8 

2.3 

2.9 

12.8 

15.4 

4389 

6835 

Manufacturers  

10.8 

3.0 

4.7 

14.0 

16.5 

7475 

6729 

Manufacturers  1 

10.0 

3.0 

3.4 

14.0 

14.4 

829 

7797 

E.  R.  Hering,  Shelbyville  

12.2 

4.0 

5.5 

12.0 

16.1 

7298 

5906 

Manufacturers  

9.7 

4.0 

4.7 

14.0 

16.3 

3236 

7977 

Sunlight  Milling  Co.,  Mt  Vernon 

8.8 

4.2 

5.1 

16.9 

17.3 

415 

7870 

Manufacturer  

9.7 

3.8 

4.2 

14.2 

16.1 

495 

6589 

Manufacturers  

9.2 

3.9 

5.6 

14.3 

16.9 

495 

7588 

Manufacturers  

9.9 

3.9 

5.0 

14.3 

16.5 

8089 

5854 

Manufacturers  ... 

11.5 

3.5 

3.5 

13.0 

14.0 

8089 

8291 

Manufacturers  

9.7 

3.5 

4.5 

13.0 

15.4 

6140 

6952 

Manufacturers  

9.5 

2.5 

4.2 

12.0 

15.8 

18  Foreign  material  present  consisting  of  chaff, 

ground  corn,  weed  seed  coatings  and  wheat 

19  Conflicting  guarantees  on  bags  and  official 

labels,  1800  lbs.  removed  from  sale. 
Screenings  present 


20  Removed  from  sale.  Conflicting  guarantees. 

Relabeled  No.  8624.  Screenings  present 

21  Removed  from  sale.  Relabeled  No.  7643. 

Screenings  present 


n TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 


Jones  & Son,  C.  N.,  Wabash,  Ind. 
Wheat  Middlings  22 


Katterjohn,  A.  F.,  Lynnville,  Ind. 
Katterjohn’s  Shorts 


Kaw  Milling  Company,  The, 
Topeka,  Kansas. 

Kaw  Kaw  Pure  Middlings  23 


Kendall,  Dor  Cuy,  Williamsburg,  Ind. 
Wheat  Shorts 


Kennedy  Milling  Company,  Geo.  W. 
Shelbyville,  Ind. 

Middlings  

Middlings  


Keplinger,  Chas.,  Zanesville,  Ind. 
Middlings  


Klemm,  Geo.  J.,  Milton,  Ind. 
Wheat  Middlings  


Klondike  Milling  Company, 
Danville,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  24 


Lafayette  Milling  Company, 
Lafayette,  Ind. 

Middlings  


Lawrenceburg  Roller  Mills  Company, 
The,  Lawrenceburg,  Ind. 

“Snowflake”  Middlings 

“Snowflake”  Middlings 

“Snowflake”  Middlings 

“Snowflake”  Middlings 


Golden  Bull  Middlings 


Leesburg  Grain  & Milling  Company, 
The,  Leesburg,  Ind. 

Middlings  


Lemon  Milling  Company,  The, 
Bedford,  Ind. 

Flour  Middlings  

Flour  Middlings  


Linton  Mill  Company,  The,  Linton,  Ind. 
Wheat  Shorts 


Listman  Mill  Company.  La  Crosse,  Wis. 
Elmco  Standard  Middlings 


Maegerlein,  E.  S.,  Patricksburg,  Ind. 

Shorts  23  

Shorts  


Marshall  Milling  Company, 
Marshall,  Ind. 

Shorts  26  .. 


Marshall  Milling  Company, 
Marshall,  Minn. 

Wheat  Flour  Middlings  — 


Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

5190' 

5559 

Manufacturers  

11.7 

3.5 

2.3 

14.0 

12.9 

6987 

6081 

Manufacturer  

10.3 

3.4 

2.0 

14.0 

13.6 

8306 

7602 

Clover  Leaf  Mills,  Kokomo 

9.7 

3.0 

3.8 

15.0 

16.8 

363 

7899 

Williamsburg  Flour  Mills, 

Williamsburg  

9.4 

4.0 

3.7 

14.0 

15.4 

2110 

6996 

Manufacturers  

9.8 

3.5 

4.2 

13.5 

15.9 

2110 

7861 

Manufacturers  _ 

8.3 

3.5 

5.4 

13.5 

18.5 

842 

6689 

Zanesville  Roller  Mills,  Zanesville 

10.1 

4.0 

3.8 

14.0 

15.4 

4736 

7945 

Manufacturer  

10.2 

2.0 

3.9 

10.0 

15.6 

2653 

5576 

Manufacturers  

11.4 

3.5 

2.6 

13.5 

15.0 

3831 

8116 

Manufacturers  __ 

10.6 

2.8 

4.8 

14.0 

16.7 

11 

5445 

Star  Milling  Co.,  Aurora 

8.5 

5.1 

5.4 

16.0 

17.3 

11 

6552 

Richard  Hagans,  Greenfield 

9.7 

5.1 

5.1 

16.0 

17.0 

11 

7709 

Geo.  Niemeyer  & Sons,  Dillsboro 

8.6 

5.1 

5.1 

16.0 

18.0 

11 

7800 

Cutsinger  & Thompson, 

Shelbyville  

8.4 

5.1 

5.4 

16.0 

18.2 

7111 

5408 

Milan  Mill  & Elevator,  Milan___ 

9.7 

3.0 

4.6 

17.5 

19.2 

306 

7267 

Manufacturers  _ - ___  

9.3 

4.0 

3.5 

14.0 

13.6 

7431 

5921 

Manufacturers  __  ___  ___  __ 

10.0 

2.0 

2.7 

12.0 

14.1 

7431 

8086 

Manufacturers  

9.0 

2.0 

4.3 

12.0 

15.8 

507 

7133 

Manufacturers'  

10.5 

4.0 

3.7 

14.0 

16.3 

3367 

6909 

Williamsport  Grain  Co., 

Williamsport  

9.9 

5.6 

5.6 

18.1 

18.1 

8100 

6205 

Manufacturer  

10.1 

3.0 

3.0 

13.0 

13.9 

8100 

7137 

Manufacturer _ 

10.6 

3.0 

3.1 

13.0 

15.8 

5157 

7632 

Manufacturers  

10.7 

4.0 

1.7 

14.0 

13.4 

8023 

6154 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Lafayette  

9.8 

5.0 

5.7 

17.0 

18.6 

22  Sample  consisted  of  low  grade  flour  and  trace 
middlings 

28  Low  grade  flour  present 


24  Sample  consisted  of  low  grade  flour  and  trace 

middlings 

25  Low  grade  flour  present 

26  Large  amount  of  flourstuff  present 


42 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 

protein 

percent. 

'S3 

56 

o 

§ 

43 

o 

00 

o § 

g 

O Cj 

T3 

C 

1 

Martin  & Martin,  New  C'astle,  Ind. 

Martin  & Martin’s  Wheat  Middlings. _ 

3794 

6546 

Manufacturers  __ 

10.0 

3.7 

4.0 

14.0 

15.8 

♦Shorts  _ ..  

8350’ 

Manufacturers 

9.5 

4.4 

16.8 

Mayflower  Mills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind. 

Mayflower  Mills  Wheat  Middlings 

451 

5516 

Reed  Bros.,  Fort  Wayne 

8.3 

4.0 

4.9 

14.0 

14.9 

Modoc  Roller  Mills  & Elevator, 

Modoc,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  

4963 

7903 

Manufacturer 

9.2 

1.5 

2.5 

10.0 

13.3 

Moscow  Roller  Mills,  Moscow,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  

16331 

7866 

Manufacturers 

10.7 

3.8 

3 3 

14.2 

14.7 

ttWheat  Middlings 

1633 

7868 

B.  L.  Coy,  Waldron 

10.8 

3^8 

3A 

14^2 

14^5 

Myers  & Son,  Joseph  H.,  Chili,  Ind. 

Germ  Middlings  

3325 

6617 

Manufacturers 

9.9 

3.0 

5.2 

15.0 

15.8 

New  Era  Milling  Company,  The, 

Arkansas  City,  Kansas 

Standard  Wheat  Shorts  

6860 

7478 

Hamlet  Grain  Co.,  Hamlet 

5.9 

4.0 

4.7 

17.5 

17.9 

New  Milling  Company,  The, 

Greenfield,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings 

7721 

6554 

Manufacturers 

10.1 

2.4 

3.6 

14.0 

17.2 

New  Prague  Flouring  Mill  Co., 

New  Prague,  Minn. 

Seal  of  Minnesota  Wheat  Standard 

Middlings  

7908 

7403 

Gandy  Grain  Co.,  Churubusco__ 

10.0 

5.2 

5.1 

15.0 

16.6 

Seal  of  Minnesota  Wheat  Standard 

Middlings  _ _ 

7908 

7570 

Hoosier  Wholesale  Grocery  Co., 

South  Bend  __  

9.8 

5.2 

5.6 

15.0 

17.0 

Nodine,  W.  J.,  Waterloo,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings 

3151 

7399 

Manufacturers 

10.2 

3.5 

4 2 

14.0 

15.9 

Wheat  Middlings 

3151 

8234 

Manufacturer 

10.3 

3.5 

4^0 

14!o 

14*9 

Norris  & Kidwell,  Washington,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  27  

8235 

7192 

Manufacturer 

10.0 

3.5 

5.4 

15.4 

16.6 

North  Manchester  Milling  Company, 

North  Manchester,  Ind. 

“North  Manchester  Milling  Companys 

Middlings”  

855 

8101 

Manufacturers 

10.5 

4.0 

3.1 

14.0 

14.1 

Orleans  Mill  & Elevator  Company, 

Orleans,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings 

7019 

5931 

Manufacturers 

9.1 

4.0 

4.2 

14.0 

14.5 

Wheat  Middlings 

7019 

8084 

Manufacturers  

io!o 

4J) 

4^0 

14!o 

15^0 

Osakis  Milling  Company,  Osakis,  Minn. 

Fancy  Middlings 

3195 

7559 

Louis  P.  Plotnicki,  South  Bend- 

8.5 

4.0 

6.3 

15.0 

17.4 

Ossian  Roller  Mills,  Ossian,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings 

6399 

6687 

Manufacturer 

10.9 

3.1 

3.3 

13.5 

14.5 

Wheat  Middlings 

6399 

7960 

Manufacturer  

10.1 

3.1 

3^8 

13^5 

15.0 

Pancost  Milling  Company,  Elkhart,  Ind. 

Middlings  

800 

7552 

Manufacturers 

9.6 

4.0 

4.2 

14.0 

15.0 

Paoli  Milling  Company,  Paoli,  Ind. 

Shorts  as  _ 

627 

6961 

Manufacturer  

9.7 

3.0 

3.1 

12.0 

12.4 

Shorts  

627 

8093 

Manufacturer  

8.4 

3!o 

4.3 

12.0 

15.6 

Peru  Milling  Company,  The,  Peru,  Ind. 

Wheat,  Middlings  _ 

18 

6613 

Manufacturer 

9.0 

3.1 

4.9 

14.2 

15.8 

Wheat  Middlings 

18 

8001  1 

Manufacturer  

9.1  1 

3.1 

4.9 

14.2 

15.9 

* Not  tagged  27  Screenings  present.  400  lbs.  withdrawn, 

ft  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished  Relabeled  No.  8531 

28  Low  grade  flour  present 


43 


TABLE  IV.— Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

[3 

*3 

56 

o 

s 

o 

o 

CU  Q 

c 

i T3 

as 

o § 

T3 

1 

o § 

T3 

a 

1 

Plainfield  Milling  Company, 

Plainfield,  Ind. 

4408 

7545 

Manufacturer  

9.8 

3.5 

4.6 

13.0 

15.7 

Ray  & Rice,  Camden,  Ind. 

Wheat  Shorts  29 

3002 

5940 

Manufacturer 

10.2 

3.0 

3.3 

14.0 

12.8 

Red  Mill,  The,  Fairland,  Ind. 

3250 

7805 

Manufacturers 

10.3 

2.5 

5.2 

13.0 

18.1 

Richland  Milling  Company, 

Bloomfield,  Ind. 

1147 

7181 

Manufacturers  . 

11.5 

4.0 

4.3 

14.0 

15.0 

Richmond  Roller  Mills,  Richmond,  Ind. 

The  Richmond  Roller  Mills  Wheat 

483 

6248 

Mann  Factnrers 

9.8 

3.7 

4.9 

14.0 

16.1 

The  Richmond  Roller  Mills  Wheat 

483 

7951 

9.0 

3.7 

4.7 

14.0 

17.2 

Rittenhouse,  E.  S.,  Liberty  Mills,  Ind. 

Liberty  Bird  Middlings 

3044 

8096 

Manufacturer  __  .. 

9.2 

2.5 

3.2 

12.5 

14.6 

Rockport  Milling  Company, 

Rockport,  Ind. 

Kopp’s  Wheat  Middlings  

2748 

5743 

French  Lick  Hotel  Co., 

French  Lick 

9.0 

3.5 

4.3 

14.0 

16.4 

Kopp’s  Wheat  Middlings  

2748 

5774 

New  Albany  Milling  Co., 

New  Albany  

9.1 

3.5 

4.0 

14.0 

15.1 

Kopp’s  Wheat  Middlings  ..  _ 

2748 

7888 

Manufacturers 

9.3 

3.5 

5.0 

14.0 

16.8 

Roper  & Brown,  Hobart,  Ind. 

Hobart  Wheat,  Middlings 

5960 

6451 

Manufacturers 

10.9 

3.5 

4.9 

14.0 

16.5 

Hobart  Wheat  Middlings  _ 

5960 

6452 

Manufacturers 

11.0 

3^5 

3.9 

14!o 

15A 

Salem  Farmers  Milling  Company, 

Salem,  Ind. 

Wheat  Shorts 

6022 

5899 

Manufacturers  

11.4 

2 0 

2.6 

12.0 

12.6 

Wheat  Shorts  _ 

6922 

5900 

Manufacturers  __ 

10.4 

2.0 

3.6 

12.0 

14.1 

Wheat  Shorts 

6922 

8013 

Manufacturers  __ 

10.3 

2.0 

2.7 

12.0 

12.8 

Schulte,  W.  C.,  Freelandville,  Ind. 

Wheat  Shorts  ___  

6436 

5999 

Manufacturer  

10.5 

4.0 

3.3 

14.0 

14.6 

Schultz  Bros.,  Elberfeld,  Ind. 

Middlings  __ 

3925 

6934 

Manufacturers 

9.0 

4.0 

4.0 

14.0 

14.9 

Seidel,  W.  T.,  Orland,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  

6373 

6071 

Orland  Milling  Co.,  Orland. 

12.2 

3.0 

3.9 

13.0 

13.3 

Sims  Milling  Company,  Frankfort,  Ind. 

Wheat  Shorts 

6304 

6431 

Manufacturers 

9.8 

4.0 

4.6 

14.0 

16.2 

Wheat  Shorts  _ _ . _ 

6304 

7493 

Manufacturers  ...  . 

9.6 

4.0 

4^0 

14J) 

16.1 

Sloan,  J.  F.,  Palestine,  Burket  P.  0., 

Ind. 

Sloan’s  Wheat  Middlings 

227 

5879 

Green  Bros.  & Oldfather, 

Warsaw  

9.0 

4.0 

4.7 

14.0 

16.0 

Smock  & Caca,  Noblesville,  Ind. 

ttWheat  Middlings  

0881 

7623 

Manufacturers 

9.8 

2.0 

5.3 

12.0 

17.5 

Southwestern  Milling  Company,  Inc., 

The,  Kansas  City,  Mo. 

Pure  Wheat  Brown  Shorts 

7953 

6507 

Geo.  Steckley,  Kendallville 

8.8 

4.2 

4.4 

15.0 

15.8 

Pure  Gray  Shorts 

7954 

8240 

Hammel  Milling  Co.,  Fremont— 

8.6 

3.8 

4 A 

15.0 

17!9 

Sparks  Milling  Company, 

Terre  Haute,  Ind. 

Wabash  Middlings 

2774 

7766 

Neals  Feed  Store,  Jason ville 

9.2 

4.0 

4.6 

14.0 

17.1 

Tt  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished  29  Low  grade  flour  present 


44 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moicture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Starlight  Milling  Company, 

Borden,  R.  R.  No.  1,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings 

7795 

8027 

Manufacturers 

10.0 

2.0 

6.4 

11.0 

18.1 

Star  Milling  Company,  The, 

Aurora,  Ind. 

2672 

7659 

Manufacturers  

10.2 

4.0 

4.1 

14.6 

16.4 

Star  Milling  Company,  Shoals,  Ind. 

503 

7451 

Manufacturers 

11.0 

4.0 

4.8 

14.0 

16.7 

St.  Joe  Milling  Company,  St.  Joe,  Ind. 

St.  Joe’s  Wheat  Middlings  30 

5127 

8180 

Gtrrett  Elevator  Co.,  Garrett.. 

10.1 

4.0 

3.6 

14.0 

15.9 

St.  .Toe’s  Wheat  Middlings  31 

5127 

8226 

Manufacturers  

10.4 

4.0 

3.7 

14.0 

14.7 

Suckow  Company,  Franklin,  Ind. 

“Perfection”  Wheat  Middlings  32 

5946 

6972 

Morgantown  Grain  Co., 

Morgantown . 

7.8 

4.0 

4.0 

14.0 

15.5 

Taylor-Hitz  Company,  Madison,  Ind. 

413 

8203 

Manufacturers  

9.4 

4.0 

4.4 

14.0 

15.2 

Thomas  & Son,  A.  R.,  Markle,  Ind. 

Wheat  Shorts 

3189 

5541 

Manufacturers  

10.3 

3.2 

5.3 

14.1 

15.9 

Thurgood,  Chas.  R.,  Vincennes,  Ind. 

Wbpat.  Middling'S 

8077 

7223 

Manufacturer 

9.6 

3.0 

3.7 

13.0 

17.3 

Timbrook  & Hursh,  Auburn,  Ind. 

inborn  Pnllpr  Mills  Middlings 

6985 

6577 

H.  W.  Timbrook,  Auburn 

10.1 

3.4 

4.8 

14.0 

15.4 

Auburn  Roller  Mills  Middlings 

6985 

7398 

H.  W.  Timbrook,  Auburn 

11.0 

3 4 

4.0 

14.0 

17  5 

Auburn  Roller  Mills  Middlings  _ 

6985 

8232 

H.  W.  Timbrook,  Auburn 

10.4 

3.4 

4.0 

14!o 

17^6 

Tresselt  & Sons,  C.,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind. 

Wheat,  Shorts  33  

410 

5531 

Manufacturers  _ _ _ 

9.9 

4.0 

4.0 

14.0 

15.0 

Wheat  Middlings 

411 

5533 

Manufacturers 

mo 

4^0 

5!4 

14/> 

16.3 

Tuttle  & Company,  R., 

Columbia  City,  Ind. 

Perfection  Middlings  _ _ 

818 

6696 

Manufacturers  _. 

9.3 

4.0 

5.2 

14.0 

16.4 

Perfection  Middlings 

818 

8068 

Manufacturers 

9.0 

4.0 

5.1 

14.0 

16.8 

Uhl-Snider  Milling  Company, 

Connersville,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings 

5136 

6740 

Manufacturers 

10.1 

3.7 

4.8 

14.0 

15.6 

Victoria  Milling  Company,  The, 

Jasper,  Ind. 

Victoria  Wheat  Shorts 

7170 

5747 

Manufacturers  _. 

10.2 

3.3 

4.2 

15.0 

15.6 

Wabash  Milling  Company,  The, 

Wabash,  Ind. 

Middlings 

2 

5557 

Manufacturers 

12.0 

4.0 

4.2 

14.0 

15.6 

Wakarusa  Milling  Company,  The, 

Wakarusa,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  

7642 

8299 

Manufacturers 

9.1 

3.7 

4.2 

13.0 

14.5 

Walker  & Son,  J.  M.,  Middletown,  Ind. 

Gilt  Edge  Middlings  __  

8162 

6291 

Manufacturers 

10.7 

3.7 

5.1 

14.0 

17.0 

Gilt  Edge  Middlings _ 

8162 

7516 

A.  Holliday,  Muncie 

m2 

3.7 

4^8 

14!o 

14^8 

Gilt  Edge  Middlings 

8162 

7928 

New  Castle  Elevator  Co., 

New  Castle  . .. 

10.2 

3.7 

4.6 

14.0 

16.1 

Wallace  Milling  Company,  The, 

Dale,  Ind. 

Wallace’s  Pure  Wheat  Middlings 

7747 

7972 

Manufacturers  . 

9.3 

4.0  1 

5.8 

15.0 

17.6 

80  Removed  from  sale.  Misbranded  32  Screenings  consisting  of  ground  cheat  and 

si  Removed  from  sale.  Misbranded.  Relabeled  chaff  present 

No.  8925.  Wheat  bran  present  38  Wheat  bran  present 


45 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

I Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Wellington  Milling  Company, 

Anderson,  Ind. 

4987 

6280 

Manufacturers  

9.4 

4.0 

5.0 

15.0 

16.2 

4987 

7526 

S.  R.  Snell,  Muncie 

10.3 

4.0 

4.7 

15.0 

17.2 

Wells-Abbott-Nieman  Co.,  Schuyler,  Neb. 

Wheat  Shorts 

6942 

7575 

Union  Grain  & Feed  Co., 

Anderson  

9.5 

4.0 

4.4 

15.0 

17.7 

Wheat  Shorts34 

6942 

7647 

Union  Grain  & Feed  Co. 

Anderson  

9.2 

4.0 

4.2 

15.0 

17.9 

Western  Flour  Mill  Company, 

Davenport,  Iowa 

Black  Hawk  Standard  Middlings 

7896 

5928 

Orleans  Mill  & Elevator  Co., 

Orleans  - - 

9.3 

5.2 

4.9 

15.0 

17.3 

Black  Hawk  Standard  Middlings 

7896 

6481 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis- 

9.7 

5.2 

5.4 

15.0 

16.9 

Black  Hawk  Standard  Middlings 

7896 

6883 

Batchelor  & Barlow,  Sharpsville 

9.5 

5.2 

5.0 

15.0 

15.9 

Black  Hawlr  Standard  Middlings 

7896 

7610 

D.  R.  Murray,  Clinton  __  _ 

11.3 

5.2 

5.6 

15.0 

17.7 

Witmer  Grain  Company,  Grabill,  Ind. 

1679 

8230 

Manufacturers  

9.7 

4.0 

4.8 

14.0 

15.8 

Woodburn  Elevator  & Milling 

Company,  Woodburn,  Ind. 

5480 

6146 

Manufacturers  

10.1 

3.0 

2.8 

14.0 

13.3 

Zabel  & Son,  Lanesville,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings 

7039 

5845 

New  Middletown  Milling  Co., 

New  Middletown  

11.1 

2.5 

4.6 

14.0 

14.9 

Zenith  Milling  Company, 

Kansas  City,  Mo. 

Wheat  Shorts 

7372 

5481 

I.  B.  Clyne,  Crawfordsville  _ 

10.0 

3.5 

5.4 

16.0 

17.0 

Wheat  Shorts 

7372 

5914 

Sturgeon  Grain  & Coal  Co., 

Muncie  

9.1 

3.5 

5.3 

16.0 

17.6 

Ziliak  & Schafer  Milling  Company, 

Haubstadt,  Ind. 

Middlings 

4059 

5655 

Manufacturers 

10.7 

3.5 

3.8 

14.5 

15.9 

Middlings 

4059 

7919 

Ma.nnfaetnrp.rs 

10.4 

3.5 

4.1 

14.5 

15.5 

No  Manufacturer 

♦Wheat,  Middlings  ... 

7923 

Fhhrer  Ford  Milling  Co., 

New  Harmony __ 

10.0 



4.8 

___ 

17.6 

WHEAT  MIDDLINGS  AND  RED 

DOG  FLOUR 

Cadick  Milling  Company, 

Grandview,  Ind. 

Shipstuff  

7859 

5790 

Bernard  Hartz,  C'hrisney 

10.1 

4.0 

4.4 

16.0 

15.4 

Shipstuff  

7859 

5794 

Manufacturers 

9.8 

4.0 

4.3 

16.0 

15.7 

Shipstuff  

7859 

8224 

Manufacturers 

8.5 

4.0 

5.2 

16.0 

16.8 

WHITE  MIDDLINGS 

Bachman  Flour  Mill,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

White  Middlings  

5902 

6540 

Valentine  Bachman, 

Indianapolis  - 

10.1 

3.7 

3.7 

15.0 

15.2 

White  Middlings  _ _ 

5902 

7742 

Manufacturers 

9.8 

3.7 

4.5 

15.0 

16.1 

Bicknell  Mill  Company,  Bicknell,  Ind. 

White  Middlings  

7825 

8387 

Manufacturers 

9.5 

3.0 

3.8 

12.0 

14.4 

Clayton  Milling  Company,  Clayton,  Ind. 

White  Middlings  

7722 

6574 

M anuf  acturers 

9.6 

1.8 

2.9 

13.0 

13.8 

Collamer  Milling  Company, 

Collamer,  Ind. 

White  Middlings  

7052 

7147 

Manufacturers 

10.2 

2.0 

3.9 

13.0 

15.1 

White  Middlings  

7052 

8097 

Manufacturers 

9.2 

2.0 

4.2 

13.0 

16^2 

J Street  Milling  Company,  Laporte,  Ind. 

White  Middlings 

5054 

6348 

Manufacturers  — 

9.8 

2.0 

4.4 

12.0 

16.5 

* Not  tagged 


34  Removed  from  sale.  Conflicting  guarantees. 
Relabeled  with  No.  7349 


46 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Kehlor  Flour  Mills  Company, 

St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Neptune  White  Middlings 

4191 

6219 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Lafayette  

9.5 

4.0 

3.6 

17.0 

16.8 

Neptune  White  Middlings 

4191 

7464 

Paul  Kuhn  & Co.,  Clay  City___ 

10.1 

4.0 

3.8 

17.0 

17.9 

Myers  & Son,  Joseph  H.,  Chili,  Ind. 

7581 

6616 

Manufacturers  _ „ 

10.4 

2.9 

2.5 

13.9 

13.0 

White  Middlings  . _ _ 

7581 

7406 

.T  T,  & J.  M.  Myers,  Chili 

11.4 

2.9 

2.1 

13.9 

12.7 

Rockport  Milling  Company, 

Rockport,  Ind. 

Knpp’s  Whit, ft  Middlings 

7477 

5797 

Manufacturers 

9.9 

2.3 

3.3 

13.5 

14.0 

Southwestern  Milling  Company,  Inc., 

The,  Kansas  City,  Mo. 

Pure  Fancy  White  Middlings 

7955 

6509 

Geo.  Steckley,  Kendallville 

11.6 

2.5 

3.1 

14.0 

15.9 

Sullivan  Mill  & Elevator  Company, 

Sullivan,  Ind. 

*Whitft  Middlings  . . 

5584 

Manufacturers  _ 

12.1 

1.3 

12.4 

tfWhite  Middlings  

7982 

5599 

O A Mpier;  Sullivan 

12.0 

2.5 

1.3 

12~0 

12.4 

8390 

7231 

M an  u f a e t n re  r s 

10.3 

1.2 

1.5 

12.5 

12.2 

RED  DOG  FLOUR 

Coppes  Bros.  & Zook,  Nappanee,  Ind. 

Red  Dog  Flour  (Branded  “P”i 

7610 

6528 

Manufacturers  

9.3 

2.7 

2.9 

14.0 

14.3 

Red  Dog  Flour  CRranded  “F1”! 

7610 

8305 

Manufacturers 

10.0 

2.7 

2.9 

14.0 

14.8 

Crocker,  William  G.,  Minneapolis,  Minn. 

William  G.  Crocker’s  Red  Dog  Flour— 

2904 

5374 

Colfax  Grain  Co.,  Colfax 

10.0 

5.0 

5.3 

17.0 

17.8 

Loughry  Bros.  Milling  & Grain 

Company,  Monticello,  Ind. 

Loughry’s  Red  Dog  Flour 

7731 

7330 

Manufacturers 

11.1 

3.5 

3.5 

16.0 

15.4 

Washbura-Crosby  Company, 

Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Red  Dog  Flour  (Adrian) 

7233 

8065 

Farmers  Mill  & Elevator  Co., 

Columbia  City  

8.8 

4.0 

6.0 

16.0 

20.8 

LOW  GRADE  FLOUR 

*Low  Grade  Flour  35 

7155 

Fountain  Produce  Co., 

Yeedersburg  

11.9 

2.6 



15.3 

WHEAT  MIDDLINGS  AND 

SCREENINGS 

Acme-Evans  Company, 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Acme  Middlings  and  Screenings 

5590 

5349 

Nixon  & Van  Deventer,  Attica— 

10.1 

4.5 

4.6 

16.5 

16.5 

Acme  Middlings  and  Screenings 

5590 

6155 

Dayton  Grain  & Lumber  Co., 

Dayton  _ 

9.5 

4.5 

4.0 

16.5 

16.0 

Acme  Middlings  and  Screenings 

5590 

7341 

Thorntown  Grain  Co., 

Thorntown  

10.7 

4.5 

4.9 

16.5 

16.4 

Acme  Middlings  and  Screenings 

5590 

7435 

S.  W.  McCormick,  Waveland 

8.8 

4.5 

4.5 

16.5 

16.8 

Acme  Middlings  and  Screenings. 

5590 

7489 

Colfax  Grain  Co.,  Colfax 

9.6 

4.5 

4.7 

16.5 

16.5 

Acme  Middlings  and  Screenings 

5590 

8106 

R.  E.  Hayes,  Campbellsburg 

8.9 

4.5 

5.0 

16.5 

16.5 

Ashbrook  Company,  The  J.  S., 

Mattoon,  111. 

. • , ; . i. 

ttWheat  Middlings  with  Ground  Screen- 

ings   . 

8531 

7193 

F.  S.  Gregory,  Washington 

9.6 

4.0 

5.3 

14.0 

16.6 

Wheat  Middlings  with  Ground  Screen- 

ings 

8531 

7667 

Gfdhreflth  ^ 6n.,  Cayuga. 

9.4 

4.0 

5.0 

14.0 

17.0 

ttWheat  Middlings  with  Ground  Screen- 

ings   

8531 

7461 

I.  Bunch,  Linton 

9.6 

4.0 

4.4 

14.0 

18.0 

• jNot  tagged  85  Manufacturer  could  not  be  ascertained 

ft  Labels  furnished 


47 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

T) 

G 

0 

O 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Badenoch  Company,  J.  J.,  Chicago,  111. 

J.  J.  Badenoch  Co’s  Wheat  Standard 

Middlings  with  Ground  Screenings 

not  exceeding  Mill  Run 

6220 

6937 

Kellner  & Callahan,  Rensselaer. 

9.5 

5.0 

5.8 

15.0 

17.0 

J.  J.  Badenoch  Co’s  Wheat  Standard 

Middlings  with  Ground  Screenings 

not  exceeding  Mill  Run 

6220 

7557 

Hoosier  Wholesale  Grocery  Co., 

South  Bend 

8.2 

5.0 

5.9 

15.0 

15.6 

Bartlett  Company,  The  J.  E., 

Jackson,  Mich. 

Standard  Wheat  Middlings  and 

6814 

5540 

Farmers  Grain  Co.,  Markle 

9.3 

4.5 

4.5 

13.5 

16.5 

Bernet,  Craft  & Kauffman  Milling 

Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

5791 

7706 

John  Crum,  Milan 

8.6 

4.9 

4.6 

17.2 

16.9 

Big  Diamond  Mills  Company, 

Minneapolis,  Minn. 

“Big  Diamond  Standard  Middlings” 

and  Screenings 

7059 

5711 

J.  H.  Menke,  Richmond 

8.8 

4.2 

5.1 

14.6 

16.4 

“Big  Diamond  Standard  Middlings” 

7059 

7909 

J.  H.  Menke,  Richmond 

8.4 

4.2 

, 5.4 

14.6 

17.3 

Bloomington  Milling  Company,  The, 

Bloomington,  Ind. 

tMiddlings  & Screenings 

8447 

6134- 

Manufacturer  _ 

9.4 

4.0 

5.2 

14.0 

15.2 

Brook  Elour  & Eeed  Mill,  Brook,  Ind. 

tfRising  Sun  Middlings  & Ground 

Screenings 

8930 

7773 

G.  E.  Vest,  Brook... 

9.9 

4.0 

5.4 

14.0 

16.1 

Brose,  George,  Evansville,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  and  Screenings 

6854 

6810 

Manufacturers 

9.8 

3.8 

3.8 

15.5 

Wheat  Middlings  and  Screenings 

6854 

7825 

S.  M.  Heard,  Evansville 

8.2 

3.8 

4.1 

15.5 

10. D 

17  ft 

Wheat  Middlings  and  Screenings 

6854 

7878 

Manufacturers  

9.0 

3i8 

4^3 

15.5 

1 1 .u 

17.1 

Butler  & Company,  Edw.  J., 

Chicago,  111. 

Wheat  Elour  Middlings  and  Screenings 

8347 

7204 

D.  A.  Rumpel,  Berne 

9.8 

4.0 

5.8 

14.0 

16.7 

tfStandard  Middlings  & Screenings 

8348 

5950 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Go., 

Reynolds  

10.1 

4.0 

5.2 

14.0 

17.1 

Cannelton  Flour  Mills,  Cannelton,  Ind. 

Ship  & Wheat  Screenings 

2589 

5803 

Manufacturers  _ 

10.5 

4.0 

4.2 

n 

Ifi  4 

Ship  & Wheat  Screenings  

2589 

8215 

Manufacturers  _ __ 

10.1 

4.0 

41 

H.v 

14.0 

10.4fc 

15.1 

Chicago  Heights  Oil  Mfg.  Co., 

Chicago,  111. 

“Prize”  Standard  Middlings  and 

Screenings  _ 

7006 

5399 

Watkins  & Gripe,  Lincoln 

8.6 

4.0 

5.5 

15.0 

16.6 

“Prize”  Standard  Middlings  and 

Screenings 

7006 

5934 

T L.  Garter  & Son,  TTpland 

•9.1 

4.0 

4.9 

15.0 

15.8 

“Prize”  Standard  Middlings  and 

Screenings  __  __  __ 

7006 

7377 

W.  H.  Meloy,  Argos 

9.9 

4.0 

5.1 

15.0 

15.4 

“Prize”  Standard  Middlings  and 

Screenings  36  . 

7000 

8241 

Butler  Milling  Co.,  Butler 

9.0 

4.0 

6.3 

15.0 

33.0 

Columbia  City  Mill  & Elevator 

Company,  Columbia  City,  Ind. 

\ 

Wheat  Middlings  & Ground  Screenings 

6990 

8067 

Farmers  Mill  & Elevator  Co., 

Columbia  City,  ! ... 

9.1 

2.8 

3.0 

13.0 

15.0 

Coppes  Bros.  & Zook,  Nappanee,  "Ind. 

Middlings  & Ground  Wheat  Screenings 

7561 

5952 

Beach  & Simmers,  Albany... 

9.4 

4.0 

4^3r 

15& 

15.8 

Middlings  & Ground  Wheat  Screenings 

7561 

8111 

Benj.  Noftsger,  Rochester 

9.1 

4.0 

4.6 

15.8  ■ 

•16.8 

Middlings  & Ground  Wheat  Screenings 

7561 

8304 

Manufacturers  

9.5 

4,0 

4.1. 

m 

16.7 

Crocker,  William  G.,  Minneapolis,  Minn. 

' ” ••  : ' 

- 

r'-'i'M 

Wheat  Elour  Middlings  with  Ground 

» *‘§0 

, T 

Screenings  not  exceeding  Mill  Run— 

7238 

5375 

Colfax  Grain  Co.,  Colfax 

9.4 

4.0 

5.1 

15.0 

17.8 

t Before  registration  36  Wrong  label  attached.  Label  6351  ftirnished. 

ft  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished  Sample  is  linseed  meal 


48 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Number 

Crude 

fat 

Crude 

protein 

Label 

.2 

Sample  secured  from 

g4| 

per  cent. 

per  cent. 

Official 

O 

oo 

G 

5 a> 
a y 
*8  a 

E 0) 

S a 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Deutsch  & Sickert  Company, 

Milwaukee,  Wis. 

Eagle  Wheat  Standard  Middlings 

with  Ground  Screenings 

7188 

6805 

W.  A.  Browning  Milling  Co., 

Rvansville 

10.9 

5.0 

4.8 

14.0 

16.3 

Dickinson  Company,  The  Albert, 

Chicago,  111. 

Wheat  Standard  Middlings  with 

Ground  Screenings  not  to  exceed 
Mill  Run __  _ 

5840 

5607 

Farmers  Elevator  Co.,  Morocco. 

9.7 

5.0 

4.9 

15.0 

16.1 

Wheat  Standard  Middlings  with 

Ground  Screenings  not  to  exceed 

• 

Mill  Run  _ 

5840 

7295 

Griper  Sen,  Middjebury 

9.2 

5.0 

4.9 

15.0 

16.6 

Wheat  Standard  Middlings  with 

Ground  Screenings  not  to  exceed 
Mill  Run  

5840 

8309 

C.  L.  Fisher  & Co.,  Bremen 

8.7 

5.0 

5.5 

15.0 

16.5 

Flour  Middlings  with  Ground  Wheat 

Screenings  not  to  exceed  Mill  Run... 

6944 

6350 

McMahan  Bros.,  Valparaiso 

9.1 

4.5 

5.2 

15.5 

16.8 

Eagle  Roller  Mill  Company, 

New  Ulm,  Minn. 

Wheat  Middlings  with  Ground  Screen- 

6687 

6628 

Erie  Elevator,  Rochester  . 

9.6 

4.5 

5.1 

15.4 

15.4 

Early  & Daniel  Company,  The, 

Cincinnati,  Ohio 

Middlings  # Screenings 

7274 

7062 

.Tnhn  Grirm,  Milan 

10.2 

4.0 

4.2 

15.0 

17.0 

Eckart  Milling  Company,  B.  A., 

Chicago,  111. 

Middlings  with  Ground  Screenings 

not  exceeding  Mill  Run 

5400 

6227 

J,  R..  Starr,  Winamnc 

9.3 

4.0 

4.5 

14.0 

17.0 

Middlings  with  Ground  Screenings 

not  P-x-eeeding  Mill  Run 

5400 

6375 

A . Smith  & Cn  , Sheridan 

9.6 

4.0 

4.9 

14.0 

16.5 

Middlings  with  Ground  Screenings 

not  exceeding  M,,l  Run 

5400 

7291 

Wolfe  & Bevington, 

Sh'PShewan  a 

9.9 

4.0 

4.7 

14.0 

15.6 

Edinger  & Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Wheat  Middlings  and  Wheat  Screen- 

ings  _ _ _ 

7200 

5851 

W.  D.  Hum  Milling  Co., 

New  Salisbury 

Wheat  Middlings  and  Wheat  Screen- 
ings 

10.2 

4.5 

4.2 

15.5 

17.1 

7206 

6733 

O.  L.  Cauble,  Pekin  

9.8 

4.5 

4.6 

15.5. 

16.1 

Everett,  Aughenbaugh  & Company, 

Waseca,  Minn. 

E-A-CO  Wheat  Middlings  and  Ground 

Screenings  . _ 

5440 

5370 

Vandalia  Elevator  Co.,  Colfax. 

10.3 

3.0 

4.9 

15.0 

17.0 

Farmers  Mill  & Elevator  Company,  The, 

Columbia  City,  Ind. 

tfWhcat  Middlings  &.  Screenings 

8952 

8270 

Manufacturers  

9.4 

2.5 

4.0 

12.0 

14.8 

Fisher  Bros.,  Evansville,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  and  Screenings 

8715 

7841 

Manufacturers  

10.1 

4.0 

5.3 

14.0 

16.0 

Fyke  Milling  Company,  La  Grange,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  fr.  Screenings 

6422 

7305 

Manufacturers  _ _ 

9.5 

3.5 

4.0 

13.5 

13.6 

Garland  Milling  Company, 

Greensburg,  Ind. 

Garland  Middlings  fr,  Screenings 

7281 

7854 

Manufacturers 

9.5 

4.3 

4.5 

16.5 

17.1 

Goshen  Milling  Company,  The, 

Goshen,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  and  Ground  Wheat 

Screenings 

7471 

6523 

Manufacturers  

9.9 

3.2 

4.9 

13.5 

15.4 

Wheat  Middlings  and  Ground  Wheat 

Screenings  

7471 

8128 

Manufacturers  

1 9.5 

3.2 

4.4 

13.5 

16.1 

f f Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished 


49 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 


Hales  & Edwards  Company, 

Chicago,  111. 

Wheat  Middlings  “With  Screenings 
not  exceeding  Mill  Run” 


Haynes  Milling  Company,  The, 
Portland,  Ind. 

Haynes  Special  Mixed  Feed  __ 


Home  Mill  & Grain  Company, 
Mt.  Vernon,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  & Screenings 
Wheat  Middlings  & Screenings 


Hubbard  Milling  Company, 

Mankato,  Minn. 

Standard  Middlings  & Ground  Screen- 
ings — 
Standard  Fine  Middlings  & Ground 
Screenings  


Hunter-Robinson-Wenz  Milling 
Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 
Middlings  and  Screenings  ___ 
Middlings  and  Screenings  — 


Igleheart  Bros.,  Evansville,  Ind. 

Pure  Wheat  Middlings  & Screenings 

not  exceeding  Mill  Run 

Pure  Wheat  Middlings  & Screenings 

not  exceeding  Mill  Run 

Pure  Wheat  Middlings  & Screenings 

not  exceeding  Mill  Run  37 

Pure  Wheat  Middlings  & Screenings 

not  exceeding  Mill  Run 

Pure  Wheat  Middlings  & Screenings 
not  exceeding  Mill  Run 


Imperial  Mills,  The, 

Cambridge  City,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  and  Ground  Screen- 

Interstate  Feed  Association, 

Detroit,  Mich. 

Interstate  Standard  Middlings  and 
Screenings  


Judson  Creamery  & Produce  Company. 
North  Judson,  Ind. 

Judson  Wheat  Middlings  and  Screen- 
ings — 


Kansas  Flour  Mills  Company, 

Wichita,  Kansas 

Standard  Shorts  & Wheat  Screenings. 

Kaw  Milling  Company,  The, 

Topeka,  Kansas 

Kaw  Kaw  Shorts  & Ground  Screen- 
ings not  to  exceed  5% 


Kehlor  Flour  Mills  Company, 

St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Rex  Middlings  and  Ground  Screenings. 


Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

j Found 

7643 

5347 

Fred  Holtz,  Williamsport 

1-0.3 

3.5 

5.2 

14.0 

16.5 

7894 

5955 

Manufacturers  1 

9.4 

3.5 

3.3 

14.5 

15.4 

7686 

6890 

Manufacturers  _ 

9.4 

4.0 

4.1 

16.0 

15.9 

7686 

7978 

Clint  Stroud,  Mt.  Vernon 

9.4 

4.0 

5.7 

16.0 

17.6 

5447 

7717 

F.  A.  Finch  & Co.,  Hillsboro-— 

9.1 

5.1 

6.0 

14.5 

16.7 

8538 

0958 

Iroquois  Roller  Mills,  Rensselaer 

9.7 

5.0 

6.3 

16.0 

16.9 

5220 

6157 

Stiefel  & Levy,  Kimmel 

11.1 

4.0 

2.9 

15.0 

15.8 

5220 

8358 

Marengo  Milling  Co.,  Marengo- 

9.4 

4.0 

3.8 

15.0 

15.4 

5772 

5679 

W.  N.  Erwin,  Inglefield 

9.3 

5.0 

4.2 

16.0 

16.1 

5772 

6754 

Ballard  & Magenheimer, 

Haubstadt  

8.8 

5.0 

4.2 

16.0 

15.4 

5772 

6867 

P.  Reising  & Sons,  Poseyville— 

8.9 

5.0 

4.5 

16.0 

16.1 

5772 

6938 

W.  N.  Erwin,  Inglefield 

8.4 

5.0 

4.5 

16.0 

17.8 

5772 

7895 

P.  Reising  & Sons,  Poseyville— 

8.8 

5.0 

5.1 

16.0 

17.3 

7592 

7943 

Manufacturers  . 

10.4 

3.7 

4.5 

14.0 

16.1 

8183 

7097 

Geneva  Milling  & Grain  Co., 

Geneva  

10.4 

5.0 

5.1 

14.0 

16.4 

8496 

6225 

Miller  & Dilts,  Winamac 

9.9 

4.0 

4.3 

14.5 

16.5 

7886 

7004 

Putmann  Hdw.  Co.,  New  Point- 

10.6 

4.2 

5.1 

16.0 

17.5 

8304 

7515 

Sturgeon  Grain  & Coal  Co., 

Muncie  

10.0 

4.0 

4.4 

17.0 

17.9 

6682 

5464 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Linden  

11.2 

4.0 

4.2 

16.0 

16.2 

37  Conflicting  guarantees.  Withdrawn 


50 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 


Kemper  Mill  & Elevator  Company, 
Kansas  City.  Mo. 

Crescent  Middlings  with  Ground 
Screenings  


ings  not  exceeding  Mill  Run 


La  Grange  Mills,  Red  Wing,  Minn. 
Eine  Middlings  with  Ground  Screen- 
ings not  exceeding  Mill  Run 

Fine  Middlings  with  Ground  Screen- 
ings not  exceeding  Mill  Run 


Little  Crow  Milling  Company, 
Warsaw,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  & Screenings.. 


Loughry  Bros.  Milling  & Grain 
Company,  Monticello,  Ind. 
Loughry’s  Wheat  Middlings  and 
Screenings  


Louisville  Milling  Company, 

Louisville,  Ky. 

Wheat  Shorts  with  Ground  Screen- 
ings not  exceeding  Mill  Run 

Wheat  Shorts  with  Ground  Screen- 
ings not  exceeding  Mill  Run 


Lyon  & Greenleaf  Company, 
Ligonier,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  and  Screenings.. 


Mallinson,  Charles  L.,  Evansville,  Ind. 
Wheat  Shorts  & Ground  Screenings 


Marshall  Milling  Company, 

Marshall,  Minn. 

tfShorts  and  Screenings  not  exceeding 

Mill  Run  

Shorts  and  Screenings  not  exceeding 

Mill  Run  

Shorts  and  Screenings  not  exceeding 
Mill  Run  


Mayflower  Mills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind. 
Wheat  Middlings  with  Ground  Screen- 
ings not  exceeding  Mill  Run 


Milford  Grain  & Milling  Company, 
Milford,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  & Ground  Screenings 

Miller  Flour  & Feed  Company, 

The  Wesley,  South  Bend,  Ind. 

Wheat  Middlings  & Screenings 


Mosher  & Company,  A.  B., 
Columbia  City,  Ind. 
ttWheat  Middlings  & Screenings 

Muller  Bros.  Milling  Company, 
Ferdinand,  Ind. 

Wheat  Shorts  and  Screenings  . 


National  Feed  Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 
Wheat  Middlings  & Ground  Screenings 
Wheat  Middlings  & Ground  Screenings 


Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

6028 

7719 

Flem  Van  Meter,  Jasonville 

8.7 

4.2 

5.3 

1 

16.0 

18.7 

7323. 

5380 

Probst  & Kassebaum, 

Indianapolis 

9.2 

4.3 

4.4 

16.0 

16.0 

8604 

7188 

0.  Gandy  & Co.,  Mentone 

11.1 

5.0 

5.4 

15.5 

16.5 

8004 

8056 

0.  Gandy  & Co.,  Mentone 

9.6 

5.0 

5.7 

15.5 

18.6 

7284 

8061 

Manufacturers  

9.1 

3.0 

4.6 

13.0 

17.6 

6170 

7328 

Manufacturers  

11.0 

4.0 

4.2 

14.0 

15.4 

6176 

5754 

Charlestown  Milling  Co., 

Charlestown  __ 

9.0 

4.0 

4.4 

15.0 

16.3 

6176 

8320 

T.  A.  Pass,  Sellarsburg 

10.6 

4.0 

4.0 

15.0 

15.8 

8003 

7507 

Manufacturers  _ 

10.1 

4.0 

4.3 

14.0 

16.0 

7364 

6850 

Manufacturer  

9.7 

4.0 

4.2 

14.0 

14.6 

6390 

5359 

Hurst  & Co.,  Indianapolis... 

8.9 

5.0 

4.6 

17.0 

17.3 

6396 

6379 

Ed.  B.  Murphy,  Carmel 

10.2 

5.0 

5.3 

17.0 

16.2 

6390 

7082 

Chas.  W.  Jessup,  Madison 

9.8 

5.0 

5.2 

17.0 

16.9 

8170 

8103 

Farmers  Elevator  Co.,  Laketon 

9.3 

4.0 

5.1 

14.0 

15.7 

8480 

8268 

Manufacturers  

9.1 

3.5 

4.8 

14.0 

16.8 

6483 

7539 

Manufacturers  

9.6 

4.0 

5.6 

14.0 

16.0 

8483 

6162 

J.  L.  Keisler  & Sons, 

Columbia  City  

10.4 

3.0 

5.1 

13.0 

16.1 

8448 

8219 

A.  Graves  Sons,  Tell  City. 

9.4 

4.0 

4.1 

14.0 

15.8 

7349 

6960 

Pickens  & Brengle,  Orleans 

10.6 

4.0 

3.1 

16.0 

15.7 

7349 

7283 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Lafayette  

9.4 

4.0 

3.2 

16.0 

16.5 

tf  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished 


5i 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1913 

(continued) 


Number 

’3 

£ 

.2 

o 

op  n 

56 

GO 

o 

7507  . 

7306 

6230 

5498 

6393 

6394 

7521 

6856 

5814 

6856 

5818 

6856 

7832 

. 7134 

5614 

Tim 

. 7134 

7294 

. 7134 

7844 

• 7676 

7893 

■ 8110 

6109 

■ 8110 

7635 

6588 

6530 

6588 

8311 

- 5967 

7027 

■ 7598 

6535 

- 7598 

7470 

- 7600 

7469 

. 7013 

5844 

. 7013 

7480 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

'O 

a 

§ 

fa 

8.5 

— 

4.9 

— 

16.5 

10.3 

4.0 

4.5 

15.0 

15.8 

10.0 

4.5 

4.8 

15.5 

16.5 

8.9 

4.5 

6.1 

15.0 

16.6 

10.1 

4.0 

4.2 

15.5 

16.2 

9.8 

4.0 

4.3 

15.5 

15.7 

9.5 

4.0 

4.4 

15.5 

16.8 

10.0 

4.0 

5.0 

14.0 

16.4 

9.7 

— 

5.0 

— 

16.4 

8.9 

4.0 

5.2 

14.0 

16.8 

9.8 

4.0 

5.2 

14.0 

16.4 

9.1 

4.0 

5.3 

14.0 

17.7 

. 11.1 

4.0 

4.0 

15.0 

16.2 

• 11.2 

4.0 

4.4 

15.0 

17.0 

■ 10.2 

3.8 

4.7 

14.0 

15.8 

■ 10.7 

3.8 

4.6 

14.0 

16.2 

- 10.3 

4.0 

5.4 

15.0 

15.9 

9.3 

5.0 

5.8 

15.0 

15.9 

- 9.4 

5.0 

5.1 

15.0 

17.2 

- 9.0 

4.5 

5.3 

16.0 

17.7 

. 9.7 

4.0 

4.6 

15.0 

16.0 

. 8.0 

4.0 

4.5 

15.0 

17.3 

Label 


Newsome  Feed  & Grain  Company, 
Pittsburgh,  Pa. 

♦Wheat  Middlings  


Noblesville  Milling  Company, 
Noblesville,  Ind. 

Noblesville  Milling  Go’s  Middlings  & 
Ground  Screenings  not  exceeding 
Mill  Run  


Northwestern  Consolidated  Milling 
Company,  The,  Minneapolis,  Minn. 
Wheat  Plour  Middlings  with  Ground 
Screenings  not  exceeding  Mill  Run__ 
“Wheat  Standard  Middlings  with 
Ground  Screenings  not  exceeding 
Mill  Run”  


Phoenix  Flour  Mill,  Evansville,  Ind. 
Wheat  Middlings  and  Ground  Screen- 
ings   

Wheat  Middlings  and  Ground  Screen- 
ings 38  

Wheat  Middlings  and  Ground  Screen- 
ings — 


Pillsbury  Flour  Mills  Company, 
Minneapolis,  Minn. 

tfPillsbury’s  Wheat  Standard  “B”  Mid- 
dlings with  Ground  Screenings  not 

exceeding  Mill  Run 

♦Pillsbury’s  Wheat  Standard  “B“  Mid- 
dlings with  Ground  Screenings  not 

exceeding  Mill  Run 

Pillsbury’s  Wheat  Standard  “B”  Mid- 
dlings with  Ground  Screenings  not 

exceeding  Mill  Run 

Pillsbury’s  Wheat  Standard  “B”  Mid- 
dlings with  Ground  Screenings  not 
exceeding  Mill  Run 


Poseyville  Milling  Company,  The, 
Poseyville,  Ind. 

Wheat  Shorts  & Screenings 


Rohm  Bros.,  Rockville,  Ind. 
Shorts  and  Screenings  Product 
Shorts  and  Screenings  Product 


Schilt,  W.  F.,  Bremen,  Ind. 
Wheat  Shorts  & Screenings 
Wheat  Shorts  & Screenings 


Schultz-Baujan  & Company, 
Beardstown,  111. 

Sunbeam  Middlings  and  Screenings. 

Sheffield-King  Milling  Company, 
Minneapolis,  Minn. 

“Fairybow”  


“Fairybow”  

“Whitehope”  

Stanard-Tilton  Milling  Company, 

St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Wheat  Middlings  with  Screenings  Not 

Exceeding  Mill  Run 

Wheat  Middlings  with  Screenings  Not 
Exceeding  Mill  Run 


Sample  secured  from 


Purdue  University,  Lafayette... 


W.  G.  Sweet,  Royal  Center. 


Ed.  Behnke,  Gary  

Muncie  Oil  & Coal  Co.,  Muncie. 


American  Cooperative  Assoc., 

Boonville  

American  Cooperative  Assoc. 

Boonville  

Manufacturers  


Ogle  Land  Co.,  Linton 

Griner  & Son.  Middlebury. 
Fisher  Bros.,  Evansville... 


Manufacturers 


Manufacturers 

Manufacturers 


Manufacturers 

Manufacturers 


C.  Nieman,  Sunman 


Wakarusa  Milling  Co., 

Wakarusa  

J.  R.  Starr,  Winamac. 
J.  R.  Starr,  Winamac.. 


Thomas  & Hickman,  Corydon. 


* Not  tagged 

tt  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished 


33  Misbranded.  Relabeled  No.  2253 


52 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 


Star  & Crescent  Mining  Company, 
Chicago,  111.  _ 3 „ 

tfStar  Middlings  with  Ground  Screen- 
ings not  exceeding  Mill  Run 

Star  Middlings  with  Ground  Screen- 
ings not  exceeding  Mill  Run 

Star  Middlings  with  Ground  Screen- 
ings not  exceeding  Mill  Run 

Star  Middlings  with  Ground  Screen- 
ings not  exceeding  Mill  Run 

Star  Middlings  with  Ground  Screen- 
ings not  exceeding  Mill  Run 

tfStar  Middlings  with  Ground  Screen- 
ings not  exceeding  Mill  Run 

Stokes  Milling  Company, 

Watertown,  So.  Dak. 

Country  Wheat  Middlings  and  Screen- 
ings Not  Exceeding  Mill  Run 

Suckow  Company,  Franklin,  Ind. 

Middlings  and  Screenings  

Middlings  and  Screenings 


Taylor-Hitz  Company,  Madison,  Ind. 
Taylor-Hitz  Co’s  Middlings  and 
Screenings  — » 

Tranchant  & F’innell  Co.,  Osborn,  Ohio 

**Noxall  White  Middlings  containing 
Screenings  not  exceeding  Mill  Run — 

Trow  Company,  W.,  Madison,  Ind. 

Trow’s  Middlings  & Screenings 

Trow’s  Middlings  & Screenings 

Valentine  & Valentine,  Franklin,  Ind. 

Middlings  and  Screenings 

Middlings  and  Screenings 

Valier  & Spies  Milling  Company, 

St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Valier’s  Wheat  Middlings  with  Ground 

Wheat  Screenings 

Valier’s  Wheat  Middlings  with  Ground 

Wheat  Screenings 

Valier’s  Wheat  Middlings  with  Ground 
Wheat  Screenings 

Wagner-White  Company,  Inc., 

Jackson,  Mich. 

Middlings  with  Screenings  Not  to  Ex- 
ceed Mill  Run 

Washburn-Crosby  Company, 
Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Washburn-Crosby  Co’s  Wheat  Stand- 
ard Middlings  with  Ground  Screen- 
ings Not  Exceeding  Mill  Run 

Wheat  Standard  Middlings  with 
Ground  Screenings  not  exceeding 

Mill  Run 

Wheat  Standard  Middlings  with 
Ground  Screenings  not  exceeding 
Mill  Run  

tfWheat  Standard  Middlings  with 
Ground  Screenings  not  exceeding 
Mill  Run  

tfWheat  Standard  Middlings  with 
Ground  Screenings  not  exceeding 
Mill  Run 


Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

5376 

5716 

Indiana  School  for  Feeble 

Minded  Youth,  Ft.  Wayne 

9.4 

4.0 

5.0 

15.0 

16.8 

5376 

6264 

Hamlet  Grain  Co.,  Hamlet 

9.1 

4.0 

5.6 

15.0 

16.8 

5376 

6458 

Roper  & Brown,  Hobart 

10.1 

4.0 

4.9 

15.0 

16.5 

5376 

7912 

Powell  & Co.,  Fountain  City__ 

9.6 

4.0 

4.7 

15.0 

16.6 

5376 

7996 

Simon  J.  Carroll,  Bunker  Hill__ 

9.5 

4.0 

4.8 

15.0 

16.9 

5376 

8388 

F’.  O.  Underhill,  Greensfork 

8.9 

4.0 

4.6 

15.0 

16.2 

8492 

6643 

Prater-Mottier  Co.,  Terre  Haute 

9.5 

5.5 

4.9 

15.9 

17.1 

7375 

6563 

Manufacturers  _ 

9.0 

3.5 

4.6 

14.0 

16.7 

7375 

7750 

Manufacturers  

9.2 

3.5 

4.8 

14.0 

17.3 

6313 

5435 

Manufacturers  _ 

9.5 

3.7 

4.4 

14.0 

16.2 

6765 

Caser  Fohl  & Son, 

Cedar  Grove  — 

9.6 

___ 

4.6 



16.0 

1972 

5435 

Manufacturers  

9.5 

4.5 

4.5 

16.0 

16.1 

1972 

8152 

M.  A.  King,  Madison 

9.8 

4.5 

4.3 

16.0 

| 16.0 

7455 

6558 

Manufacturers  

7.7 

3.5 

4.8 

14.0 

16.7 

7455 

7754 

Manufacturers __ 

9.0 

3.5 

4.3 

14.0 

16.9 

6157 

6685 

Valier  & Spies  Milling  Co., 

Terre  Haute 

9.4 

5.0 

5.1 

16.0 

18.4 

6157 

6672 

Kewanna  Butter  & Produce  Co., 

Kewanna  __  

9.0 

5.0 

5.1 

16.0 

16.7 

6157 

7616 

Hargrave  Brothers,  Russellville. 

8.6 

5.0 

6.1 

16.0 

16.7 

8855 

8249 

Fremont  Co-op.  Assoc.,  Fremont 

8.4 

4.5 

5.6 

14.0  | 

19.2 

5465 

7200 

Jesse  Goshorn,  Washington 

9.9 

5.0 

5.4 

15.0 

16.6 

7230 

5563 

D.  R.  Smith,  Tipton 

11.1 

4.0 

5.2 

14.0 

15.9 

7230 

5896 

City  Mills  & Elevator, 

Winchester  

10.0 

4.0 

5.0 

14.0 

16.7 

7230 

6000 

Galbreath  & Schriner,  Cayuga.. 

10.6 

4.0 

4.4 

14.0 

16.5 

7230 

7013 

Ideal  Milling  & Grain  Co., 

Ridgeville  

10.6 

4.0 

5.1 

14.0 

16  5 

**  Not  registered 


tl  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished 


53 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 


Washburn-Crosby  Company, 
Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Wheat  Standard  Middlings  with 
Ground  Screenings  not  exceeding 

Mill  Kun  

Wheat  Standard  Middlings  with 
Ground  Screenings  not  exceeding 

Mill  Run  

Wheat  Standard  Middlings  with 
Ground  Screenings  not  exceeding 
Mill  Run  

Yoder,  Marion  J.,  Middlebury,  Ind. 

tWheat  Middlings  and  Ground  Wheat 

Screenings  

Wheat  Middlings  and  Ground  Wheat 
Screenings  

Ziliak  & Schafer  Milling  Company, 
Haubstadt,  Ind. 

Wheat  Shorts  and  Ground  Screenings _ 
Wheat  Shorts  and  Ground  Screenings  _ 
Wheat  Shorts  and  Ground  Screenings  _ 

MIXED  FEED:  WHEAT  BRAN 
AND  WHEAT  MIDDLINGS 

Acme  Milling  Company,  The, 

Aurora,  Ind. 

Bran  & Middlings 

Bran  & Middlings 

Bachman,  Valentine,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 
Bachman’s  Cleaned  Wheat  Product— 
Bachman’s  Cleaned  Wheat  Product— 

Brizius  Company,  The  Chas.  W., 
Newburgh,  Ind. 

Eagle  Mixed  Feed 

Eagle  Mixed  Feed 

Burns,  W.  T.,  Rising  Sun,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  

Cauble  & Dunlevy,  Henryville,  Ind. 

Star  Mixed  Feed 

Cayuga  Milling  Company,  Cayuga,  Ind. 
Cayuga  Milling  Co’s  Mixed  Wheat 

Bran  & Wheat  Shorts 

Cayuga  Milling  Co’s  Mixed  Wheat 
Bran  & Wheat  Shorts 

Clayton  Milling  Company,  Clayton,  Ind. 
Mixed  Feed 

Collamer  Milling  Company, 

Collamer,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  

Mixed  Feed  

Dubois  Milling  Company,  Dubois,  Ind. 
Bran  & Shorts 

Gaston  Roller  Mills,  Gaston,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  & Middlings 

Heaton,  E.  H., 

Indianapolis,  R.  R.  No.  12,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  


Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

| Found 

7230 

7487 

Vandalia  Elevator  Co.,  Colfax. 

9.2 

4.0 

5.1 

14.0 

18.9 

7230 

7730 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Linden  

9.4 

4.0 

5.1 

14.0 

18.1 

7230 

7914 

Powell  & Co.,  Fountain  City— 

8.8 

4.0 

5.9 

14.0 

17.0 

8783 

74361 

Manufacturer  

9.3 

3.7 

4.4 

14.0 

14.8 

8783 

8125 

Manufacturer  

9.8 

3.7 

4.4 

14.0 

14.7 

7215 

5654 

Manufacturers  . 

9.7 

4.5 

4.4 

16.5 

16.1 

7215 

6749 

Manufacturers  _ . 

10.2 

4.5 

4.7 

16.5 

16.6 

7215 

7973 

Manufacturers  

9.3 

4.5 

5.2 

16.5 

17.2 

970 

5453 

Manufacturers  

9.6 

3.9 

4.6 

14.2 

15.2 

970 

7662 

Manufacturers  

9.5 

3.9 

4.5 

14.2 

16io 

6960 

6541 

Manufacturer  

9.6 

3.7 

4.6 

16.0 

15.8 

6950 

7743 

Manufacturer  

9.2 

3.7 

4.5 

16.0 

15.4 

5927 

6901 

Manufacturers  

9.8 

4.0 

4.7 

15.1 

15.9 

5927 

7794 

Chas.  W.  Brizius  Co.,  Evansville 

9.6 

4.0 

4.7 

15.1 

16.9 

7768  ! 

7059 

Manufacturer  

10.7 

3.0 

4.9 

14.0 

15.4 

5825 

5868 

Manufacturers  _ 

9.9 

4.0 

3.7 

14.0 

14.7 

419 

6005 

Manufacturers  

10.4 

3.9 

4.3 

14.0 

16.2 

419 

7666 

Manufacturers  

10.2 

3.9 

3.9 

14.0 

15.9 

7665 

6573 

Manufacturers  . 

9.2 

3.0 

4.5 

13.0 

15.4 

7053 

7146 

Manufacturers 

9.6 

3.5 

4.0 

14.0 

14.8 

7053 

8098 

Manufacturers  

8.1 

3.5 

3.5 

14.0 

15.8 

1192 

5761 

Manufacturers  

10.0 

3.6 

3.9 

13.0 

14.7 

5508 

6334 

Manufacturers  

9.3 

3.0 

4.2 

13.0 

16.5 

5931  1 

7745 

Manufacturer  

9.8 

3.0 

3.8 

13.5 

15.5 

t Before  registration 


54 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

j Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

'O 

(3 

1 

Hosmer,  Otis  I.,  Doolittle  Mills,  Ind. 

Shipstuff — 

41820 

5856 

Doolittle  Mills,  Doolittle  Mills.— 

9.3 

3.5 

3.8 

14.0 

14.7 

Hornung,  J.  M.,  Greensburg,  Ind. 

4flb6 

7871 

Manufacturer 

9.6 

3.7 

3.7 

14.0 

15.7 

Jay  Grain  Company,  The,  Mulberry 

Branch,  Mulberry  Ind. 

“Jay’s”  Wheat  Bran  & Shorts 

7716 

6423 

Jay  Grain  Co.,  Elwood 

9.6 

3.0 

3.9 

14.0 

14.5 

Jones  & Son,  C.  N.,  Wabash,  Ind. 

7733 

5560 

Manufacturers 

10.5 

3.0 

4.0 

14.0 

16.1 

Karnes,  Lubert,  Martinsburg,  Ind. 

Red  Wing  Dairy  Feed 

527 

5881 

Manufacturer  _ _ 

10.4 

3.8 

4.1 

14.0 

14.5 

527 

8031 

Manufacturer 

9.4 

3.8 

4.2 

14.0 

16.3 

Katterjohn,  A.  F.,  Lynnville,  Ind. 

6938 

6930 

Manufacturer 

9.5 

4.0 

5.0 

14.0 

17.1 

Lawrenceburg  Roller  Mills  Company, 

Lawrenceburg,  Ind. 

“Snowflake”  Mixed  Feed 

•8518 

7704' 

Milan  Mill  & Elevator,  Milan.. 

8.7 

4.3 

4.3 

15.2 

16.4 

Martin  & Martin,  New  Castle,  Ind. 

Martin  fo  Martin’s  Mi-srpd  Feed 

4351 

6545 

Manufacturers  

10.0 

3.5 

4.1 

13.0 

15.8 

Martin  & Martin’s  Mixed  Feed 

4351 

8341 

Manufacturers 

9.2 

3.5 

3.9 

13.0 

16.2 

Pyrmont  Milling  Company, 

Pyrmont,  Ind. 

Pyrmont  Ship 

265 

6215 

Manufacturers  

10.4 

4.0 

3.5 

14.0 

15.1 

Schnell,  Joseph,  Schnellville,  Ind. 

Shipstuff  

7088 

5847 

M.  Schuppert  & Sons,  Depauw. 

10.6 

2.5 

4.3 

12.0 

14.5 

Smith,  D.  R.,  Tipton,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed 

4081 

5561 

Manufacturer  

10.3 

3.0 

4.2 

14.0 

15.7 

Smock  & Caca,  Noblesville,  Ind. 

Bran  and  Shorts 

1424 

7620 

Manufacturers  

9.7 

3.8 

3.8 

14.5 

15.4 

Star  Roller  Mills,  The,  Burlington,  Ind. 

Mived  Feed 

3627 

5939 

Manufacturers  

9.7 

3.0 

4.4 

14.0 

15.8 

Sullivan  Mill  & Elevator  Company, 

Sullivan,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed 

6977 

5590 

Manufacturers 

10.8 

3.4 

4.0 

12.0 

15.1 

Swayzee  Milling  Company,  Swayzee,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  & Shorts 

4475 

6874 

Manufacturers 

9.2 

3.8 

4.6 

13.5 

14.9 

Victoria  Milling  Company,  The, 

Jasper,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed 

2608 

5740 

Manufacturers  

9.4 

3.5 

4.8 

14.0 

15.5 

MIXED  FEED:  WHEAT  BRAN, 

WHEAT  MIDDLINGS  AND 

SCREENINGS 

Acme-Evans  Company, 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Acme  Feed 

5588 

5048 

Nixon  & Van  Deventer,  Attica.. 

10.6 

4.0 

4.6 

16.0 

15.6 

A erne  Feed 

5588 

5459 

Stafford  Grain  Co.,  Hope 

9.4 

4.0 

4.1 

16.0 

15.7 

Acme  Feed , 

5588 

5910 

J.  H.  Williamson  Co.,  Muncie.. 

10.2 

4.0 

4.6 

16.0 

16.0 

Acme  Feed  

5588 

6404 

Jonesboro  Milling  Co., 

Jonesboro  

9.9 

4.0 

4.5 

16.0 

15.2 

Acme  Feed  - 

5588 

6707 

Hughes  Lumber  & Grain  Co., 

Brooklyn  

10.0 

4.0 

5.0 

16.0 

15.9 

Acme  Feed 

5588 

6928 

Butcher  & Duncan, 

Oakland  City 

9.4 

4.0 

4.5 

16.0 

147 

Acme  Feed  

5588 

7143 

Brewer  Co.,  Spencer 

9.9 

4.0 

4.5 

16.0 

15.8 

39  Misbranded.  Screenings  present 


55 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

is 

*3 

£ 

O 

a 

o 

5 

ID 

a 

l T3 
(-c  <D 
rt  ® 

3 C 

O s 

T5 

5 

1 

fa 

i 'O 
u ® 

a 2 
p " 
O 5 

T3 

C 

P 

o 

fa 

Acme-Evans  Company, 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

5588 

7490 

Colfax  Grain  Co.,  Colfax 

9.1 

4.0 

4.3 

16.0 

16.1 

Acme  Feed 

5588 

7670 

Branch  Grain  & Seed  Co., 

Martinsville  _ 

9.4 

4.0 

4.3 

16.0 

15.5 

5588 

7713 

T.  R.  Clyne,  Crawfnrdsvihe 

9.3 

4.0 

4.2 

16.0 

15.6 

Blanton  Milling  Company, 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

The  Rlant.nn  Mixed  Eped 

3805 

7740 

E.  H.  Heaton,  Indianapolis _ 

9.8 

3.7 

4.0 

15.7 

14.7 

Blish  Milling  Company,  Seymour,  Ind. 

7939 

5410 

Milan  Milling  Co.,  Milan 

9.8 

3.2 

4.3 

14.2 

15.9 

Bulls’  Eye  Mixed  Feed  . 

8176 

6269 

New  Albany  Milling  Co., 

New  Albany  

8.7 

4.5 

4.6 

16.0 

16.6 

Bulls’  Eye  Mixpd  Eped 

8176 

7063 

John  Crum,  Milan 

10.5 

4\5 

4.6 

16.0 

15.9 

Bulls’  Eye  Mixed  Feed 

8176 

8037 

Louis  Hartman  & Sons, 

New  Albany 

7.9 

4.5 

4.5 

16.0 

16.0 

Bulls’  Eye  Mixed  Feed 

8170 

8285 

Scottsburg  Elevator,  Scottsburg 

8.4 

4.5 

4.1 

16.0 

15.9 

Boonville  Milling  Company, 

Boonville,  Ind. 

2244 

5809 

Manufacturers  

9.7 

3.8 

4.2 

14.0 

15.4 

2244 

7882 

Manufacturers  

8.9 

3.8 

3.9 

14.0 

15.7 

Boston  Milling  Company,  Eckerty,  Ind. 

Bobbitt’s  Mixed  Feed  ____ 

3453 

5860 

Manufacturers 

8.8 

3.7 

4.2 

14.0 

14.9 

Bobbitt’s  Mixed  Eepd 

3453 

8360 

Manufacturers 

9.8 

3.7 

4.3 

14.0 

15.8 

Corbin  Milling  Company, 

New  Harmony,  Ind. 

Almira  Mixed  Feed  40 

5418 

6865 

Fuhrer-Ford  Milling  Co., 

New  Harmony 

9.3 

3.9 

4.2 

13.3 

13.6 

Decatur  Roller  Mills,  Decatur,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  1 

5428 

5418 

Fornax  Milling  Co.,  Decatur___ 

8.3 

3.0 

4.3 

13.0 

14.6 

Early  & Daniel  Company,  The, 

Cincinnati,  Ohio 

Mixed  Feed  and  Screenings 

8385 

6761 

Weber  Milling  Co.,  Brookville__ 

9.2 

3.0 

4.5 

14.0 

15.9 

Eberts  & Bro.,  North  Vernon,  Ind. 

Eberts’  Mix-Feed  ..  _ 

2652 

7005 

Putmann  Hdw.  Co.,  New  Point- 

10.7 

4.0 

3.9 

15.5 

16.2 

Eberts’  Mix-Feed 

2652 

7312 

Manufacturers  _ 

9.0 

4.0 

4.0 

15.5 

14  5 

Eberts’  Mix-Eeed 

2652 

8207 

Manufacturers 

10.5 

4.0 

4.2 

15.5 

15.9 

Eclipse  Mill,  The,  Ramsey,  Ind. 

Eclipse  Mixed  E'epd 

3455 

5850 

Manufacturers 

10.8 

3.5 

3.8 

13.5 

14.0 

Edinger  & Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Wheat  Mixed  Feed  & Wheat  Screen- 

ings 

7207 

5835 

C'.  H.  Ashworth,  Crandall 

11.1 

4.0 

4.5 

15.0 

16.1 

Wheat  Mixed  Feed  & Wheat  Screen- 

ings _ _______  

7207 

6298 

Pickens  & Brengle,  Orleans 

9.1 

4.0 

4.6 

15.0 

15.0 

Wheat  Mixed  Feed  & Wheat  Screen- 

ings   

7207 

8318 

W.  D.  Hurn  Milling  Co., 

Fuhrer-Ford  Milling  Company, 

Corydon  Junction 

9.6 

4.0 

3.9 

15.0 

15.3 

Mt.  Vernon,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed — Wheat  Bran,  Middlings 

and  Screenings 

2386 

6892 

Manufacturers 

9.6 

3.9 

5.2 

14.0 

17.2 

Mixed  Feed— Wheat  Bran,  Middlings 

and  Screenings 

2380 

7064 

Milan  Milling  Co.,  Milan 

10.7 

3.9 

4.2 

14.0 

15.3 

Mixed  Feed— Wheat  Bran,  Middlings 

and  Screenings  _ __  __ 

2386 

7845 

Fisher  Bros.,  Evansville  __ 

9.0 

3.9 

4.6 

14.0 

15.4 

Mixed  Feed — Wheat  Bran,  Middlings 

and  Screenings 

21380 

8191 

John  Hallowell,  North  Vernon.. 

8.4 

3.9 

4.4 

14.0 

17.0 

Hunter-Robinson-Wenz  Milling 

Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Mixed  Feed  

5218 

7450' 

Bloomington  Milling  Co., 

Bloomington  

8.6 

4.0 

4.3 

15.0 

16.3 

40  Withdrawn.  Wrong  label  attached.  Relabeled  No.  4682 


56 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

'5 

5fi 

O 

G 

.2 

5 

HA 

m 

G 

HH 

i 'O 

CS  « 
3 G 
O a 

TJ 

G 

I 

i ^ 

3 G 

O 3 

T3 

G 

3 

£ 

Igleheart  Bros.,  Evansville,  Ind. 

Pure  Mixed  Peed 

5773 

0758 

Ballard  & Magenheimer, 

Haubstadt  — 

9.3 

4.5 

4.4 

15.5 

15.5 

Pure  Mixed  Peed 

5773 

7918 

Ballard  & Magenheimer, 

Haubstadt  

8.2 

4.5 

3.8 

15.5 

15.8 

Lawrenceburg  Roller  Mills  Company, 

Lawrenceburg,  Ind. 

Snowflake  Mixed  Peed  

2275 

5406 

Geo.  Niemeyer  & Son,  Dillsboro. 

9.6 

4.3 

4.6 

15.2 

15.6 

Snowflake  Mixed  Peed 

2275 

6992 

Reimann  & McCammon  Co., 

Letts  

9.1 

4.3 

5.5 

15.2 

16.4 

Golden  Bull  Mixed  Feed 

7112 

5407 

Milan  Mill  & Elevator,  Milan — 

10.4 

2.5 

4.1 

16.0 

17.6 

Louisville  Milling  Company, 

Louisville,  Ky. 

Wheat  Mixed  Peed  with  Ground 

Screenings  Not  Exceeding  Mill  Run__ 

6333 

5755 

Charlestown  Milling  Co., 

Wheat  Mixed  Peed  with  Ground 

Charlestown  

9.0 

4.0 

4.3 

14.5 

15.9 

Screenings  Not  Exceeding  Mill  Run__ 

6333 

6730 

J.  A.  Zink  & Sons,  Pekin 

9.5 

4.0 

4.4 

14.5 

15.4 

Wheat  Mixed  Peed  with  Ground 

Screenings  Not  Exceeding  Mill  Run__ 

6333 

8323 

T.  A.  Pass,  Sellarsburg  

10.3 

4.0 

4.0 

14.5 

15.7 

Modoc  Roller  Mills  & Elevator, 

Modoc,  Ind. 

7253 

7902 

Manufacturers  

9.0 

3.0 

4.2 

13.0 

15.9 

National  Peed  Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Mixed  Peed  or  Mill  Run  with  Screen- 

ings   

5216 

5873 

John  Hallowell,  North  Vernon.  _ 

9.5 

4.0 

4.1 

14.0 

14.7 

Mixed  Peed  or  Mill  Run  with  Screen- 

ings  

5210 

7066 

Osgood  Flour  Mill,  Osgood 

9.6 

4.0 

4.5 

14.0 

15.5 

Mixed  Peed  or  Mill  Run  with  Screen- 

ing!?   

5216 

7448 

Pickens  & Brengle,  Orleans 

8.0 

4.0 

4.7 

14.0 

16.9 

Mixed  Peed  or  Mill  Run  with  Screen- 

Ings  - 

5210 

7792 

W.  A.  Browning  Milling  Co., 

Evansville  

8.6 

4.0 

4.5 

14.0 

16.8 

Noblesville  Milling  Company, 

Nobles ville,  Ind. 

N.  M.  Co’s  Mixed  Peed 

5243 

5730 

Goodrich  Bros.  Hay  & Grain 

Co.,  Westfield  — 

9.1 

4.0 

5.1 

16.0 

16.0 

N M Co’s  Mixed  Peed 

5243 

6826 

E.  E.  Cornthwaite,  Cicero  

9.1 

4.0 

4.8 

16.0 

15.6 

N.  M.  Co’s  Mixed  Peed 

5243 

7337 

McCorkle  & Riley,  Thorntown. 

10.9 

4.0 

4.6 

16.0 

15.4 

N.  M.  Co’s  Mixed  Feed 

5243 

7534 

Yorktown  Lumber  Co., 

Yorktown  — 

9.6 

4.0 

4.5 

16.0 

16.5 

N.  M.  Co’s  Mixed  Feed 

5243 

7901 

P.  W.  Millikan,  Blountsville 

9.2 

4.0 

4.6 

16.0 

16.4 

N M Co‘s  Goodcatch  Feed 

5351 

6911 

Ashby  & Ashby,  Ladoga 

9.9 

4.0 

5.4 

15.0 

15.6 

Phoenix  Flour  Mill,  Evansville,  Ind. 

Phoenix  “A”  Mixed  Peed 

2253 

6806 

W.  A.  Browning  Milling  Co., 

Evansville 

9.8 

4.0 

4.1 

15.0 

15.5 

Phoenix  “A”  Mixed  Peed 

2253 

7879 

Manufacturers 

9.0 

4.0 

4.0 

15.0 

17.3 

Phoenix  “A”  Mixed  Peed 

2253 

8040 

John  H.  Shine  & Co., 

New  Albany  

7.7 

4.0 

4.6 

15.0 

16.2 

Prater-Mottier  Company, 

Terre  Haute,  Ind. 

Pratprs  Mixed  Peed 

8174 

5692 

Manufacturers  __  

9.0 

4.0 

4.3 

14.5 

15.9 

Praters  Mixed  Feed  ___  

8174 

7144 

Worthington  Grain  Co., 

Worthington  

10.0 

4.0 

4.6 

14.5 

15.2 

Princeton  Milling  Company, 

Princeton,  Ind. 

Star  Brand  Mixed  Fppd 

1978 

6714 

Manufacturers 

9.5 

3.5 

3.5 

13.0 

15.3 

Star  Brand  Mixed  Peed 

1978 

6939 

Manufacturers 

9.6 

3.5 

3.5 

13.0 

15.2 

Puritan  Mills,  The,  Medora,  Ind. 

Puritan  Mixed  Peed 

8644 

7449 

M nnnf  actnrers 

9.4 

3.6 

4.0 

14.0 

15.5 

Shine  & Company,  John  H., 

New  Albany,  Ind. 

Star  Peed _ 

863 

5783 

Mrs.  John  Bental.  Jeffersonville 

9.8 

4.0 

4.2 

14.0 

16.1 

TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

1 D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Sparks  Milling  Company, 

Terre  Haute,  Ind. 

Wabash  Mixed  Peed 

3011 

5943 

Lemon  Milling  Co.,  Bedford 

9.8 

3.5 

4.3 

14.0 

15.4 

3011 

7463 

S.  A.  Ftaneis,  Clay  City 

8.8 

3.5 

4.7 

14.0 

16.0 

Wabash  Mixed  Feed 

3011 

7615 

Geo.  Mathas  & Son,  Montezuma 

9.0 

3.5 

4.5 

14.0 

15.4 

3011 

8085 

T,.  A.  Walker,  Bedford 

8.8 

3.5 

4.0 

14. C 

15.2 

Thomas  Milling  Company,  Marion,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  _ 

8167 

6366 

Manufacturers  

9.7 

3.8 

4.1 

14.0 

15.4 

8167 

7649 

G.  W.  Jones,  Upland --  -_ 

9.2 

3.8 

4.4 

14.0 

15.3 

ft  Mixed  Feed 

8167 

7652 

G.  W.  Jones,  Upland--  _ 

8.4 

3.8 

4.9 

14.0 

15.9 

Valier  & Spies  Milling  Company, 

St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Valier’s  Mixed  Feed 

6127 

6637 

Valier  & Spies  Milling  Co., 

Terre  Haute  

9.8 

4.0 

4.8 

15.0 

16.5 

Valier’s  Mixed  Feed 

6127 

7246 

Valier  & Spies  Milling  Co., 

Terre  Haute  

9.1 

4.0 

4.6 

15.0 

16.6 

Valier’s  Mixed  Feed 

6127 

7614 

Hargrave  Bros.,  Russellville 

9.0 

4.0 

5.1 

15.0 

15.7 

Wallace  Milling  Company,  The, 

Dale,  Ind. 

Wallace’s  Mixed  Feed 

172 

5771 

Manufacturers  - _ __ 

8.4 

3.9 

4.1 

14.2 

14.7 

Wallace’s  Mixed  Ffeed 

172 

7881 

Cadick  Elevator  Co.,  Boonville. 

8.8 

3.9 

4.0 

14.2 

15.8 

Wallace’s  Mixed  Feed 

172 

7971 

Manufacturers  _ 

8.4 

3.9 

3.9 

14.2 

15.3 

Walton  & Whisler,  Atlanta,  Ind. 

A.  Mixed  Feed 

7638 

6090 

Manufacturers  _ 

11.1 

3.0 

3.4 

14.0 

14.9 

Washburn-Crosby  Company, 

Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Wheat  Mixed  Feed  with  Ground 

Screenings  not  Exceeding  Mill  Run— 

7231 

6917 

Bainbridge  Mill  & Elevator  Co., 

Bainbridge  

9.5 

4.0 

5.0 

14.0 

15.7 

Ziliak  & Schafer  Milling  Company, 

The,  Haubstadt,  Ind. 

Ziliak’s  Mixed  Feed 

276 

7849 

Manufacturers  

8.3 

3.7 

4.3 

14.0 

14.6 

MIXED  FEED:  WHEAT  BRAN, 

WHEAT  MIDDLINGS,  SCREEN- 

INGS AND  SALT 

Akin-Erskine  Milling  Company, 

Evansville,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  __  __ 

6047 

5660 

Ohio  Valley  Seed  Co.,  Evansville 

9.4 

4.0 

4.1 

15.0 

15.1 

Mixed  Feed  _ __ 

6047 

5825 

Louis  Hartman  & Sons, 

New  Albany . 

11.5 

4.0 

3.9 

15.0 

15.1 

Mixed  Feed  

6047 

6716 

R.  P.  Moore  Milling  Co., 

Princeton  

9.4 

4.0 

4.1 

15.0 

14.7 

Mixed  Feed  

6047 

7818 

Ohio  Valley  Seed  Co.,  Evansville 

8.6 

4.0 

4.0 

15.0 

15.4 

MIXED  FEED:  WHEAT  BRAN, 

WHEAT  MIDDLINGS,  SCREEN- 

INGS AND  RYE 

Pearson,  W.  W.,  Upland,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  41 

5953 

6330 

Manufacturer 

11.0 

2.5 

4.4 

10.0 

17.0 

Mixed  Feed  42 

5953 

6831 

Manufacturer  . 

11.7 

2.5 

4.0 

10.0 

15.9 

Mixed  Feed  43 

5953 

6332 

Manufacturer 

13.2 

2.5 

4.7 

10.0 

14.7 

MIXED  FEED:  WHEAT  BRAN, 

WHEAT  MIDDLINGS,  SCREEN- 

INGS AND  CLEANINGS 

Garland  Milling  Company, 

Greensburg,  Ind. 

1 

Garland  Mixed  Feed 

7280  1 

5447 

Westport  Grain  Co.,  Westport. 

9.3 

4.0 

3.9  1 

15.5 

15.8 

Garland  Mixed  Feed 

7280 

6979 

Manufacturers  __  _ 

9.2 

4.0 

4.4  I 

15.5 

16.5 

Garland  Mixed  Feed 

7280'  | 

7855  1 

Manufacturers  __  

9.3 

4.0 

4.8  1 

15.5 

15.6 

tT  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished  42  Withdrawn.  Jlisbranded.  Relabeled  with  No. 

41  Withdrawn.  Misbranded.  Relabeled  with  No.  8561 


8559  43  Withdrawn.  Misbranded.  Relabeled  with  No. 

8560 


58 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Number 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Label 

| 

Sample  secured  from 

8-ti 

Official 

CD 

c 

Moistu] 

per  cen 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

MIXED  FEED:  WHEAT  BRAN 
AND  CORN  BRAN 

' 

Acme  Milling  Company,  The, 

Aurora,  Ind. 

Mxd  Rran  _ 

2556 

5434 

Manufacturers  

8.5 

3.7 

4.3 

13.6 

14.7 

Mxd  Rran 

2550 

7660 

Manufacturers 

9.4 

3.7 

3.8 

13.6 

14.8 

Berne  Milling  Company,  Berne,  Ind. 
Berne  Milling  Co’s  Wheat  & Corn 

1117 

6049 

Manufacturers 

10.2 

3.8 

3 3 

14.0 

14.8 

Berne  Milling  Co’s  Wheat  & Corn 

Rran 

1117 

7429 

Manufacturers  

9.5 

3.8 

3 4 

14.0 

14.4 

Clark  & Sons,  C.  G.,  Rushville,  Ind. 
Clark’s  Corn  & Wheat  Bran  (Mixed) __ 
Clark’s  Corn  & Wheat  Bran  (Mixed)-. 

185 

6786 

Manufacturers  

8.4 

3.7 

4.6 

14.0 

14.3 

185 

7938 

Lewisville  Elevator  Co., 
Lewisville 

9.5 

3.7 

4.2 

14.0 

15.9 

Coal  City  Milling  Company, 

Coal  City,  Ind. 

6601 

7460 

Manufacturers  

9.7 

3.5 

3.9 

13.5 

14.8 

Columbia  City  Mill  & Elevator 

Company,  The,  Columbia  City,  Ind. 
Mixed  Bran 

2701 

6692 

Manufacturers  

9.5 

3.5 

3.4 

14.0 

14.2 

Mixed  Rran 

2701 

8060 

Farmers  Mill  & Elevator  Co., 

flnlnmhia.  Oity 

8.4 

3.5 

4.1 

14.0 

15.4 

Haynes  Milling  Company,  The, 

Portland,  Ind. 

Bran 

4094 

6834 

Manufacturers  __  — 

8.9 

3.5 

4.4 

15.2 

14.3 

Imperial  Mills,  The, 

Cambridge  City,  Ind. 

Mixed  Rran 

1752 

7944 

Manufacturers  

9.1 

3.2 

4.1 

12.0 

15.7 

Jamestown  Milling  Company, 
Jamestown,  Ind. 

Noxemall  Bran 

5650 

5042 

Manufacturers  

8.9 

3.0 

4.1 

13.5 

15.4 

Nnxemall  Rran  44 

5050 

7783 

Farmers  Elevator  Co., 

Keplinger,  Chas.,  Zanesville,  Ind. 

Mixed  Rran 

3486 

6683 

Jamestown  

Zanesville  Roller  Mills, 

8.3 

3.0 

4.4 

13.5 

15.1 

Zanesville  _ 

9.4 

3.5 

4.1 

14.0 

15.0 

LaFayette  Milling  Company,  The, 
LaFayette,  Ind. 

Mixed  Rran 

117 

8115 

Manufacturers  

10.1 

4.0 

3.7 

14.0 

14.5 

Naber  & Company,  Chas.  F., 

Alexandria,  Ind. 

Mixed  Bran 

0574 

6415 

Manufacturers  

9.4 

3.0 

3.7 

13.0 

15.4 

Pennville  Milling  Company, 

Pennville,  Ind. 

Wheat.  Rran  fr,  Clnrn  Rran 

8099 

6829 

Manufacturers  

9.1 

2.9 

4.2 

12.0 

16.5 

Taylor-Hitz  Company,  Madison,  Ind. 
Bran  _ 

414 

8192 

Manufacturers  

7.6 

3.7 

4.3 

14.0 

13.8 

Uhl-Snider  Milling  Company, 
Connersville,  Ind. 

Bran 

5135 

6739 

Manufacturers  

9.2 

3.5 

6.2 

14.0 

14.1 

Wellington  Milling  Company, 

Anderson,  Ind. 

Wellington  A.  X.  A.  Mixed  Bran 

6225 

6290 

Manufacturers  ---  - 

8.9 

3.0 

4.4 

14.0 

14.6 

44  Withdrawn.  Wrong  label  attached 


59 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  “\,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

'3 

o 

s 

,o 

y 

mn 

<8 

c 

i 'O 

y 

O g 

T5 

C 

3 

O 

fa 

l ^ 

£ v 

6 a 

T3 

C 

1 

MIXED  FEED:  WHEAT  BRAN, 

CORN  BRAN,  RYE  BRAN  AND 

SCREENINGS 

Starr  Mills,  South  Bend,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed 

6001 

7300 

Manufacturers 

8.6 

3.0 

4.1 

14.0 

14.4 

6001 

7308 

Manufacturers 

9.5 

3.0 

3.6 

14.0 

15.3 

MIXED  FEED:  WHEAT  BRAN, 

CORN  BRAN  AND  SCREEN- 

INGS 

Anchor  Milling  Company, 

Rochester,  Ind. 

4214 

6619 

Manufacturers  _ _ __  

9.2 

3.0 

4.7 

12.0 

13.5 

Mixed  Feed 

4214 

8114 

B.  F.  Seward,  Rochester 

10.3 

3.0 

4.1 

12.0 

14.3 

Barry,  Russell,  Crandall,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed 

8421 

S31G 

Crandall  Flouring  Mill,  Crandall 

9.3 

3.0 

4.0 

13.0 

14.7 

Bergenroth  Bros.,  Troy,  Ind. 

Mixed  Bran  & Screenings 

3442 

8220 

Manufacturers  

8.3 

3.8 

3.6 

14.0 

14.7 

Bock,  Leonard,  Argos,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed 

2843 

6677 

Manufacturer  __ 

9.6 

3.7 

3.9 

14.0 

13.4 

Cadick  Milling  Company, 

Grandview,  Ind. 

Bran  and  Screenings 

7858 

5799 

Manufacturers  

9.6 

3.8 

3.8 

15.0 

14.7 

Bran  and  Screenings 

7858 

7880 

Cadick  Elevator  Co.,  Boonville. 

8.5 

3.8 

3.7 

15.0 

15.0 

Cannelton  Flour  Mills,  Cannelton,  Ind. 

Mixed  Bran  & Screenings 

3427 

5805 

Manufacturers 

9.6 

3.4 

4.1 

13.5 

15.3 

Mixed  Bran  & Screenings 

3427 

8213 

Manufacturers 

9.6 

3.4 

4.8 

13.5 

13.3 

Corydon  Milling  Company, 

Corydon,  Ind. 

“A”  Mixed  Feed 

7109 

5842 

Manufacturers  

10.4 

3.5 

4.7 

14.0 

15.4 

Eesley  & Company,  Wm., 

College  Corner,  Ohio 

Mixed  Feed  

4254 

5496 

Manufacturers 

8.7 

3.0 

4.0 

13.5 

13.6 

Egloff  Milling  Company,  Vincennes,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran,  Ground  Screenings  and 

Corn  Bran 

6053 

7224 

Manufacturers  

9.4 

3.5 

3.7 

14.0 

14.2 

Farmers  Mill  & Elevator  Company,  The, 

Columbia  City,  Ind. 

ttMixed  Bran  & Screenings 

8951 

8271 

Manufacturers 

7.5 

3.0 

3.9 

13.0 

16.3 

Fornax  Milling  Company,  Decatur,  Ind. 

Fornax  Mixed  Feed  _ 

7200 

6038 

Manufacturers  - 

10.0 

3.2 

3.9 

13.0 

13.9 

Gross,  L.  J.,  Sandborn,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed 

2911 

8385 

Walker  & Crane,  Sandborn 

9.2 

3.2 

5.0 

13.0 

15.3 

Hartz  & Carey  Milling  Company, 

Chrisney,  Ind. 

Bran  and  Screenings  

8687 

8222 

Manufacturers 

9.7 

3.8 

4.7 

14.0 

15.4 

Hering  & King,  Shelby ville,  R.  R.  No.  5, 

Ind. 

Mixed  Bran  and  Screenings  

7219 

7833 

E.  R.  Hering,  Shelby  ville 

10.5 

3.2 

3.9 

13.0 

14.4 

Hibbits  Mill  Company,  Muncie,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  ___  ...  _ 

2835 

5907 

Manufacturers 

8.6 

3.6 

4.1 

14.0 

15.4 

Hurn  Milling  Company,  W.  D., 

New  Salisbury,  Ind. 

Mixed  -Feed 

7959 

5855 

Manufacturers 

10.9 

3.5 

4.6 

13.0 

14.7 

Mixed  Feed  . 

7959  1 

8292 

Manufacturers  . 

9!4 

3^5 

3.4 

13.0 

14.7 

tt  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished 


6o 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Katterjohn,  Q.  F.,  Boonville,  Ind. 

Fatterjnhn’s  Mixed  Feed 

2243 

6902 

Manufacturer  

9.8 

4.0 

4.7 

13.5 

15.0 

Kennedy  Milling  Company,  The  Geo.  W., 

Shelbyville,  Ind. 

2477 

6985 

Manufacturers 

9.9 

3.5 

4.4 

13.5 

16.1 

Klemm,  Geo.  J.,  Milton,  Ind. 

3465 

7946 

Manufacturer  

9.5 

3.5 

4.0 

13.0 

15.2 

Muller  Bros.  Milling  Company, 

Ferdinand,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran,  Corn  Bran  & Screenings 

6710 

8289 

Manufacturers  

8.2 

3.5 

4.4 

14.0 

14.8 

New  Milling  Company,  The, 

Greenfield,  Ind. 

2616 

6553 

Manufacturers  

9.1 

3.8 

3.7 

14.0 

16.8 

North  Manchester  Milling  Company, 

North  Manchester,  Ind. 

Mixed  Fped 

4252 

7160 

Manufacturers  

10.2 

3.0 

3 7 

11.5 

15.1 

4252 

8102 

Manufacturers  

9.5 

3.0 

3.1 

11.5 

17.0 

Orleans  Mill  & Elevator  Company, 

Orleans,  Ind. 

Mixed  Fped 

7020 

5930 

Manufacturers  

8.6 

3.4 

4.1 

12.5 

14.8 

Mixed  Feed 

7020 

8083 

Manufacturers  

7.9 

3.4 

4.2 

12.5 

15.2 

Plainfield  Milling  Company, 

Plainfield,  Ind. 

Bran  & Screenings 

2339 

6678 

M anuf  acturers 

9.3 

3.5 

4.7 

14.0 

14.7 

Bran  & Screenings  

2339 

7544 

Manufacturers 

8.9 

3.5 

4.2 

14.0 

15.5 

Poseyville  Milling  Company,  The, 

Poseyville,  Ind. 

Mixed  Bran  & Screenings 

7677 

6885 

Manufacturers 

9.0 

3.7 

4.6 

14.0 

14.3 

Mixed  Bran  & Screenings  

7677 

7897 

Manufacturers  - 

9.1 

3.7 

4.0 

14.0 

16.9 

Rockport  Milling  Company,  The, 

Rockport,  Ind. 

Bran  & Screenings 

2248 

5798 

Manufacturers  _ 

9.6 

3.8 

4.5 

13.3 

13.4 

Bran  fr,  Serpen ings 

2248 

7890 

Manufacturers 

8.4 

3.8 

4.0 

13.3 

14.8 

Salem  Farmers  Milling  Company, 

Salem,  Ind. 

Star  Mixed  Feed  

3654 

8107 

Manufacturers 

8.0 

3.5 

3.8 

13.5 

14.7 

Silver  Star  Milling  Company, 

Patricksburg,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed 

3621 

7159 

E.  S.  Maegerlein,  Patricksburg— 

8.9 

3.0 

7.0 

13.0 

12.7 

Tell  City  Flouring  Mills,  Tell  City,  Ind. 

Bran  &,  Screenings 

5640 

5800 

Manufacturers 

9.5 

4.0 

3 8 

14.0 

14.9 

Bran  & Screenings 

5640 

8217 

Manufacturers 

8.0 

4.0 

4.0 

14.0 

15.2 

Thomas  & Son,  A.  R.,  Markle,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran  with  Corn  Bran  and 

Ground  Screenings  _ 

6337 

5542 

Manufacturers 

8.5 

3.5 

3.5 

14.0 

15.3 

Union  Roller  Mills,  West  Harrison,  Ind., 

Kiewit’s  Bran  and  Screenings. _ 

7544 

6791 

Manufacturers  _ 

8.7 

3.7 

3.8 

14.0 

13.9 

Wabash  Milling  Company, 

Wabash,  Ind. 

Summerton’s  Mixed  Feed  _ _ 

5968 

5556 

Manufacturers 

9.9 

3.0 

3.8 

13.0 

14.9 

Waltz  & Company,  J.  W., 

New  Palestine,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  

2923 

6711 

ManufnetuT’crfj 

9.0 

3.7 

4.2 

13.0 

16.7 

Wright,  John  H.,  Clinton,  Ind. 

Venus  Bran  fr,  Screenings 

7250 

7238 

Manufacturer  

9.6 

3.5 

4.7 

14.0 

16.0 

Venus  Bran  & Screenings 

7250 

7611 

Manufacturer  . - - 

9.8 

3.5 

4.4 

14.0 

16.0 

6i 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Number 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

a 

.2 

Label 

Official 

V 

aM 

m 

a 

Sample  secured  from 

Moistui 

per  cen 

1 T3 
u a> 

3 a 

3 7? 

O 3 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

MIXED  FEED:  WHEAT  BRAN, 
WHEAT  MIDDLINGS  AND  CORN 
BRAN 

Banner  Roller  Mills,  The, 

Mooresville,  Ind. 

437 

6087 

Manufacturers  __ 

10.6 

3.9 

1 4 0 

14.0 

1 

15.4 

437 

7672 

Manufacturers  

9.9 

3.9 

4.0 

14.0 

15.1 

Boldt  & Son,  Waynetown,  Ind. 

Mix  Mill  Feed  

4170 

5458 

Manufacturers  _ 

9.8 

3.0 

4.2 

11.0 

15.7 

Mix  Mill  Feed  

4170 

7715 

Manufacturers  _ __ 

9.4 

3.0 

4.2 

11.0 

16.1 

M'x  Mill  Feed 

4170 

8342 

Manufacturers  __  _ 

9.1 

3.0 

4.4 

11.0 

15.9 

Columbus  Milling  Company, 

Columbus,  Ind. 

A.  Mixed  Feed  _ _ 

8040 

5478 

Manufacturers  _ _ 

10.2 

3.0 

4.4 

13.5 

14.9 

8049 

6823 

Manufacturers . 

10.3 

3.0 

5.6 

13.5 

13.4 

Follett  & Company,  R.  J., 

Carmel,  Ind. 

3163 

6076 

Manufacturers  

9.8 

3.7 

4.7 

13.0 

15.5 

Freed  & Lewis,  Campbellsburg,  Ind. 
Mixed  Feed 

6062 

8105 

Manufacturers  

9.0 

3.0 

4.2 

13.0 

14.9 

Gilman,  S.  B.,  Summitville,  Ind. 
Gilman’s  Mixed  Feed  4& 

3216 

6067 

Manufacturers  _ __ 

11.2 

3.7 

4.2 

12.5 

13.4 

Henline,  M.  S.,  Ossian,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed 

6806 

6690 

Manufacturer  

9.5 

2.5 

3.9 

12.5 

14.9 

Mixed  Feed 

6806 

7959 

Manufacturer 

9.4 

2.5 

4.0 

12.5 

15.6 

Hollingsworth,  S.  P.,  Russiaville,  Ind. 
Hollingsworth  Mixed  Feed  *6 

7829 

6708 

Manufacturer  

9.9 

3.8 

4.2 

14.0 

16.6 

Semon,  F.  T.,  Vernon,  Ind. 

Semon’s  Mixed  Feed 

5631 

8193 

Manufacturer  __ 

9.1 

3.9 

3.9 

12.0 

16.1 

St.  Anthony  Mill  Company, 

St.  Anthony,  Ind. 

Wheat  Bran,  Shorts  & Corn  Bran 

5262 

5862 

Manufacturers  _ _ _ 

10.0 

3.0 

4.3 

13.0 

15.1 

Wheat  Bran,  Shorts  & Corn  Bran 

5262 

7452 

Manufacturers  

11.1 

3.0 

4.0 

13.0 

15.2 

Star  Milling  Company,  The, 

Aurora,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed 

2675 

5450 

Manufacturers  _ 

9.0 

4.0 

4.5 

13.5 

14.9 

Starlight  Milling  Company, 

Borden,  R.  R.  No.  1,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  _ _ 

7794 

8026 

Manufacturers  

9.1 

2.0 

4.6 

12.0 

16.1 

Walker  & Son,  J.  M., 

Middletown,  Ind. 

Walker’s  Mixed  Feed 

8163 

6281 

Manufacturer  

10.1 

3.5 

4.5 

13.0 

16.5 

MIXED  FEED:  WHEAT  BRAN, 
WHEAT  MIDDLINGS,  LOW 
GRADE  FLOUR  AND  CORN  BRAN 

Hardin  & Son,  Ladoga,  Ind. 

Hardin  & Son’s  Mill  Feed  

3482  ! 

0922 

Manufacturers 

9.8 

2.5 

4.9 

14.0 

14.2 

MIXED  FEED:  WHEAT  BRAN, 
WHEAT  MIDDLINGS,  CORN 
BRAN  AND  DUST  COLLECTOR 
BRAN 

Thornburg  Milling  & Elevator 
Company,  Martinsville,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  

2950 

7674 

/ 

Manufacturers  

10.4  1 

3.5 

3.5 

14.0 

14.4 

45  G round  corn  and  oat  hulls  present 


46  Corn  bran  not  identified 


62 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 


MIXED  FEED:  WHEAT  BRAN, 
WHEAT  MIDDLINGS,  CORN 
BRAN  AND  DUST  COLLECTOR 
DUST 

Miller,  A.  J.,  Montpelier,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  

Mixed  Feed  

MIXED  FEED:  WHEAT  BRAN, 
WHEAT  MIDDLINGS,  CORN 
BRAN,  SCREENINGS,  DUST  COL- 
LECTOR DUST  AND  CHAFF 

Harmon  & Wallace  Milling  Company, 
Owensville,  Ind. 

Royal  Mixed  Feed  

Royal  Mixed  Feed  

MIXED  FEED:  WHEAT  BRAN, 
CORN  BRAN  AND  WHEAT  DUST 

Dillsboro  Milling  Company, 

Dillsboro,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  

Mixed  Feed  47 

MIXED  FEED:  WHEAT  BRAN, 
WHEAT  MIDDLINGS,  CORN 
BRAN  AND  SCREENINGS 

Bailey  & Thompson,  Prairie  Creek,  Ind. 
Mixed  Feed  No.  1 

Besser,  W.  T.,  Greencastle,  Ind. 

Besser’s  Extra  Mixed  Feed  

Bicknell  Mill  Company,  Bicknell,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  

Mixed  Feed  

Billman  & Sons,  C.  H., 

Shelbyville,  Ind. 

Shelby  Mixed  Feed 

Bloomfield  Mill  & Elevator  Company, 
Bloomfield,  Ind. 

Mixed  Mill  Feed  

Brewer  Milling  Company,  Gosport,  Ind. 
Mixed  Feed  

Cadick  Milling  Company, 

Grandview,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  

Mixed  Feed  

Mixed  Feed  

Mixed  Feed  

Cannelton  Flour  Mills,  C'annelton,  Ind. 

“A”  Mixed  Feed 

“A”  Mixed  Feed  

Corbin  Milling  Company, 

New  Harmony,  Ind. 

Harmonic  Mixed  Feed  48  

Crescent  Milling  Company, 
CTothersville,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  

Mixed  Feed  

47  Sample  consists  of  wheat  bran 


Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

6257 

6007 

Manufacturer  

10.6 

3.0  ' 

3.9 

13.0 

16.0 

6257 

7957 

Manufacturer  

9.5 

3.0 

4.2 

13.0 

15.1 

7559 

6886 

Manufacturers  _ — ___ 

9.0 

3.5 

3.8 

13.0 

15.6 

7559 

7981 

Manufacturers  

9.3 

3.5 

4.1 

13.0 

17.2 

4053 

5412 

Manufacturers  

8.8 

2.9 

3.8 

14.0 

15.7 

4053 

7700 

Manufacturers  — 

9.5 

2.9 

3.6 

14.0 

14.0 

6952 

7232 

J.  P.  Allan,  Farmersburg 

9.6 

3.0 

3.9 

12.5 

13.0 

5170 

5959 

,T.  W.  Croxton,  Cloverdale 

9.0 

3.5 

3.5 

15.4 

15.2 

7824 

5490 

Manufacturers  

9.1 

3.0 

4.2 

13.0 

15.6 

7824 

8386 

Manufacturers  _ 

8.5 

3.0 

3.8 

13.0 

14.3 

4303 

7000 

Manufacturers  _ 

10.5 

2.0 

3.2 

10.0 

15.8 

4924 

7176 

Manufacturers  ___ 

10.0 

3.0 

5.1 

12.8 

15.1 

3930 

7457 

Manufacturers  

8.7 

2.6 

4.3 

9.5 

17.1 

7857 

5796 

Manufacturers  

10.2 

4.0 

4.1 

16.0 

14.5 

7857 

5857 

C.  Eckerty  & Sons,  Eckerty 

9.1 

4.0 

4.0 

16.0 

15.5 

7857 

7887 

Louis  Schoenfield,  Rockport 

8.8 

4.0 

4.2 

16.0 

16.1 

7857 

8225 

Manufacturers  

8.8 

4.0 

4.2 

16.0 

15.8 

3426 

5804 

Manufacturers  

9.8 

3.5 

3.9 

13.5 

15.0 

3426 

8214 

Manufacturers  

8.5 

3.5 

4.1 

13.5 

14.4 

5404 

6866 

Fuhrer-Ford  Milling  Co., 

New  Harmony  

8.3 

3.9 

3.9 

13.3 

12.9 

7574. 

6304 

Manufacturers  

9.9 

3.8 

4.7 

14.5 

14.3 

7574 

8288 

Manufacturers  

9.3 

3.8 

4.6 

14.5 

14.5 

48  Withdrawn.  Wrong  label  attached.  Relabeled 
with  No.  2385 


63 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

percent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Croxton  & Company,  J.  W., 

Cloverdale,  Ind. 

2632 

5961 

J.  W.  Croxton,  Cloverdale 

8.3 

3.5 

3.3 

12.0 

15.2 

Egloff  Milling  Company,  The, 

Vincennes,  Ind. 

6873 

7226 

Manufacturers  

9.0 

3.5 

3.7 

14.0 

15.0 

Emmert,  C.  B.,  Clarksburg,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed 

6929 

7860 

Manufacturer  __  __ 

9.9 

3.0 

3.8 

13.0 

15.0 

English  Milling  Company,  English,  Ind. 

English  Milling  Co.  Mixed  Feed _ 

966 

5858 

Manufacturers  _ 

9.7 

4.0 

4.0 

14.1 

15.0 

English  Milling  Co.  Mixed  Feed — 

966 

8363 

Manufacturers  

9.5 

4.0 

4.4 

14.1 

15.1 

Forrest  Park  Mills, 

North  Terre  Haute,  Ind. 

Mill  Fepd 

5817 

7248 

Manufacturers 

10.1 

3.8 

3 5 

9.8 

13.6 

Mill  Feed 

5817 

7624 

Manufacturers 

11.0 

3.8 

4.0 

9.8 

14.8 

Hartz  & Carey  Milling  Company, 

Chrisney,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  ..  .. 

8686 

8223 

Manufacturers 

9.9 

4.0 

4.6 

16.0 

16.6 

Holton  Milling  Company, 

Holton,  Ind. 

A.  Mixed  Feed  

7464 

5387 

Manufacturers 

9.7 

3.5 

3.9 

14.0 

14.6 

Huntington  Mill  Company, 

Huntington,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed 

492 

6587 

Manufacturers 

9.8 

3.8 

4.8 

13.5 

15.1 

Mixed  Feed 

492 

7595 

Manufacturers 

8.3 

3.8 

4.1 

13.5 

15.7 

Jamestown  Milling  Company, 

Jamestown,  Ind. 

Noxemall  Mixed  Feed  

5655 

7782 

Farmers  Elevator  Co., 

Jamestown  

9.0 

3.2 

3.5 

14.0 

14.2 

Katterjohn,  Q.  F.,  Boonville,  Ind. 

Elkhom  Mixed  Feed 

3310 

7885 

Elkhorn  Mills,  Boonville 

8.2 

3.5 

3.3 

13.5 

14.3 

Klondike  Milling  Company, 

Danville,  Ind. 

The  Mill  Run  Mixed  Feed  

2654 

6570 

Manufacturers  _ _ 

9.7 

3.5 

4.2 

13.0 

15.7 

Linton  Mill  Company,  Linton,  Ind. 

A.  Mixed  Feed _ _ 

4047 

7132 

Board  of  Trade  Feed  Store, 

Marshall  Milling  Company, 

Linton 

10.1 

3.5 

3.7 

13.0 

15.4 

Marshall,  Ind. 

Mill  Feed 

5153 

7631 

Manufacturers  

10.0 

3.0 

3.6 

14.0 

16.1 

Martinsville  Milling  Company, 

Martinsville,  Ind. 

A Mixed  Mill  Feed 

6743 

6088 

Manufacturers  _ 

9.7 

4.0 

4.2 

15.0 

15.4 

Met  amor  a Roller  Mills, 

Metamora,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  __  __  ___ 

8523 

6792 

Manufacturers 

9.4 

4.0 

4.5 

14.5 

15.3 

Oakland  City  Roller  Mills, 

Oakland  City,  Ind. 

Dairv  Mixed  Feed  _ 

1941 

6032 

Manufacturers 

9.2 

3.0 

4.4 

12.0 

15.9 

Odon  Milling  Company,  Odon,  Ind. 

Omco  Mixed  Feed  _ 

6712 

5942 

J.  Henderson  & Sons,  Bedford. 

10.8 

3.8 

3.9 

14.0 

14.2 

Omco  Mixed  Feed 

6712 

6204 

Manufacturers  _ 

9.7 

3.8 

4.7 

14.0 

14.6 

Otwell  Milling  Company,  Otwell,  Ind. 

Otwell’s  No.  1 Mixed  Feed 

3828 

6035 

Manufacturers 

9.1 

3.2 

4.2 

13.0 

15.8 

Paoli  Milling  Company,  The, 

Paoli,  Ind. 

Paoli  Mixed  Feed  . . 

2820 

6962 

Manufacturers 

9 8 

3.0 

5.4 

10.0 

13.9 

Paoli  Mixed  Feed  

2820 

8092 

Manufacturers  

8.7 

3.0 

4.9 

io!o 

14.8 

64 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Number 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Label 

a 

_o 

Sample  secured  from 

Official 

o 

CD 

S 

R v 

m « 

s ft 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Reiners,  Wm.  F.,  Birdseye,  Ind. 

Reiner’s  Mixed  Feed 

7743 

8359 

Manufacturers 

9.7 

3.2 

4.3 

13.5 

15.2 

Rockport  Milling-  Company,  The, 
Rockport,  Ind. 

A Mixed  Feed 

2247 

7889 

Manufacturers  

8.6 

3.9 

4.5 

13.3 

16.1 

Rohm  Bros.,  Rockville,  Ind. 

Mill  Feed  __  _ 

5671 

6110 

Manufacturers  

10.2 

3.5 

3.8 

15.0 

16.0 

MiU  Feed 

5671 

7634 

Manufacturers  

10.3 

3.5 

3.7 

15.0 

15.1 

Rouse  & Son,  Wm.,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 
Mixed  Feed  _ _ 

3191 

6485 

Manufacturers __ 

10.1 

3.7 

4.8 

13.5 

16.5 

Mixed  Feed  

3191 

7694 

Manufacturers  _ - 

9.7 

3.7 

4.5 

13.5 

15.4 

Scottsburg  Milling  Company, 
Scottsburg,  Ind. 

Home  Mixed  Feed 

6236 

5865 

Manufacturers  

10  4 

3 5 

4.7 

13.5 

13.6 

Home  Mixed  Feed 

6236 

8284 

Manufacturers  

8.5 

3.5 

4.8 

13.5 

14.8 

Spink  Milling  Company,  The, 
Washington,  Ind. 

Mixt  Feed 

6332 

7191 

Manufacturers  - 

10.6 

3.5 

3.6 

12.5 

14.8 

Star  Mill  Company,  Huntingburg,  Ind. 
Star  Mixed  Feed  _ __  _ 

3509 

8168 

Manufacturers  

9.8 

3.5 

4.2 

13.5 

15.2 

Star  Roller  Mills,  Carlisle,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  

5249 

5587 

6564 

7749 

6887 

Manufacturers  _ 

11.4 

2.8 

4.1 

12.5 

16.2 

Suckow  Company,  Franklin,  Ind. 
“Perfection”  Mixed’  Feed  _ 

6231 

6231 

6137 

Manufacturers  _ 

8.8 

4.0 

4.8 

12.4 

16.5 

“Perfection”  Mixed  Feed 

Manufacturers  _ _ 

9.0 

4.0 

4.0 

12.4 

16.8 

Teel  Milling  Company,  The, 

Owensville,  Ind. 

Daisy  Feed 

Manufacturers  _ __  

8.9 

3.0 

4.2 

14.0 

14.7 

Daisy  Feed  _ 

6137 

7980 

Manufacturers  

9.4 

3.0 

4.1 

14.0 

15.7 

Ulrey  & Company,  A.  A., 

Fairmount,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed 

6901 

6407 

Manufacturers  

9.4 

3.0 

4.3 

13.5 

15.2 

Valentine  & Valentine,  Franklin,  Ind. 
Mixed  Feed 

934 

6560 

Manufacturers  _ 

9.2 

4.0 

4.5 

12.4 

15.7 

Mixed  Feed 

934 

7753 

Manufacturers  _ 

9.2 

4.0 

4.1 

12.4 

16.6 

Weber  Milling  Company, 

Brookville,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  _ __ 

7890 

6762 

Manufacturers  

10.2 

3.0 

4.6 

14.0 

15.2 

MIXED  FEED:  WHEAT  BRAN, 
WHEAT  MIDDLINGS,  CORN 
BRAN,  SCREENINGS  AND  DUST 
COLLECTOR  DUST 

Reiners,  Wm.  F.,  Birdseye,  Ind. 

Reiner’s  Mixed  Feed 

7743 

5863 

Manufacturer  _ - 

9.9 

32 

3.9 

13.5 

14.5 

Reiner’s  Mixed  Feed  ..  _ _ 

7743 

8359 

Manufacturer  

9.7 

3.2 

4.3 

13.5 

15.2 

MIXED  FEED:  WHEAT  BRAN, 
WHEAT  MIDDLINGS,  CORN 
BRAN,  SCREENINGS  AND  SALT 

Tell  City  Flouring  Mills,  Tell  City,  Ind. 
A.  Mixed  Feed  

6051 

5802 

Manufacturers  - - 

9.9 

4.0 

3 8 

14.0 

14.7 

A.  Mixed  Feed 

6051 

8218 

Manufacturers  _ 

8.3 

4.0 

3.8 

14.0 

14.9 

MIXED  FEED:  WHEAT  BRAN, 
WHEAT  MIDDLINGS,  CORN 
BRAN,  SCREENINGS  AND  MILL 
SWEEPINGS 

Kingman  Grain  & Milling  Company, 
Kingman,  Ind. 

Millfeed  

3156 

6053 

Manufacturers  _ — 

10.2 

3.0 

2.5 

14.0 

14.9 

65 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

1 D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

J Found 

3915 

5932 

Manufacturers  __  

9.0 

3.5 

4.1 

14.0 

15.8 

3915 

8091 

B.  K.  Dermiah,  Paoli 

8.9 

3.5  . 

4.3 

14.0 

16.5 

6416 

5015 

Manufacturers  

9.6 

3.0 

3.3 

11.0 

13.8 

7058 

6936 

Manufacturers  _ 

9.8 

4.0 

3.5 

14.0 

13.0 

6529 

5763 

Manufacturers  _ _ __ 

9.2 

3.0 

3.9 

13.0 

15.1 

6520 

8169 

Manufacturers  

10.1 

3.0 

4.2 

13.0 

15.4 

7174 

6735 

Manufacturers  

10.2 

3.0 

6.1 

12.0 

13.4 

6130 

5883 

Manufacturer  ___ 

9.5 

2.0 

4.0 

10.0 

15.6 

6130 

8029 

Manufacturer  

9.7 

2.0 

4.6 

10.0 

14.9 

7742 

5848 

Manufacturers 

9.5 

3.5 

4 2 

13.5 

16.3 

7742 

8296 

Manufacturers 

9.7 

3.5 

3.9 

13.5 

15.1 

7765 

7190 

Manufacturers  

10.9 

3.0 

4.3 

13.0 

14.6 

6975 

5744 

Manufacturers  

9.5 

3 0 

4.6 

11.0 

14.3 

6976 

8090 

Manufacturers  

8.5 

3.0 

4.7 

11.0 

15.0 

8465 

7189 

Manufacturers  

11.1 

30 

3 3 

13.0  I 14.7 

Lemon  Milling  Company,  Bedford,  Ind. 

Mixed  Mill  Feed  

Mixed  Mill  Feed : 


MIXED  FEED:  WHEAT  BRAN, 
WHEAT  MIDDLINGS,  CORN 
BRAN,  SCREENINGS  AND  OAT 
HULLS 

Lash  Flour  Mills,  The  Fred  B., 
Farmersburg,  Ind. 

Lashs  Mixed  Feed  49 


MIXED  FEED:  WHEAT  BRAN. 
WHEAT  MIDDLINGS,  CORN 
BRAN,  CORN  FEED  MEAL, 
WHEAT  SCREENINGS  AND 
SCOURINGS 

Winslow  Milling  Company, 

Winslow,  Ind. 

Pikes  “A”  Mixed  Feed 


MIXED  FEED:  WHEAT  BRAN, 
SHORTS,  CORN  BRAN,  WHEAT 
SCREENINGS  AND  SCOURINGS 
AND  MILL  SWEEPINGS 

Farmers  Mill,  The,  Huntingburg,  Ind. 

Farmers  Mixed  Feed  

Farmers  Mixed  Feed  


MIXED  FEED:  WHEAT  BRAN, 
CORN  BRAN,  SCREENINGS. 
DUST  COLLECTOR  DUST  AND 
WHEAT  CHAFF 

Hazleton  Flour  Mills,  The, 

Hazleton,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  


MIXED  FEED:  WHEAT  BRAN, 
SHORTS,  SCREENINGS,  WHEAT 
DUST  AND  MILL  SWEEPINGS 

Cauble,  0.  L.,  Pekin,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  

Mixed  Feed  


MIXED  FEED:  WHEAT  BRAN, 
W HEAT  MIDDLINGS,  CORN 
BRAN,  CORN  FEED  MEAL  AND 
SCREENINGS 

Milltown  Milling  Company, 

Milltown,  Ind. 

“Mixed  Feed”  60  

“Mixed  Feed”  


Petersburg  Milling  & Grain  Company, 
Petersburg,  Ind. 

Petersburg  “A”  Mixed  Feed  50 

Springs  Valley  Milling  Company, 
French  Lick,  Ind. 

Valley  Mixed  Feed  

Valley  Mixed  Feed  


Whitelock  Mill  Company,  The, 
Petersburg.  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed  51 


49  Middlings  and  corn  bran  not  identified 

50  Corn  feed  meal  not  identified 


51  Corn  bran,  corn  feed  meal  not  identified 


66 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 


MIXED  FEED:  WHEAT  BRAN 
AND  CORN  RED  DOG  FLOUR 

Krause  Milling  Company,  Chas.  A., 
Milwaukee,  Wis. 

Badger  Fancy  Mixed  Feed 

MIXED  FEED:  WHEAT  MID- 
DLINGS, RED  DOG  FLOUR  AND 
SCREENINGS 

Washbum-Crosby  Company, 
Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Wheat  Flour  Middlings  with  Ground 
Screenings  Not  Exceeding  Mill  Run- 
Wheat  Flour  Middlings  with  Ground 
Screenings  Not  Exceeding  Mill  Run__ 

MIXED  FEED:  WHEAT  MID- 

DLINGS AND  CORN  FEED  MEAL 

Boonville  Milling  Company, 

Boonville,  Ind. 

Shorts  & Feed  Meal  52 

Shorts  & Feed  Meal 

Shorts  & Feed  Meal 

Fornax  Milling  Company, 

Decatur,  Ind. 

Fornax  Hog  Fteed  

Fornax  Hog  Feed  52  

MIXED  FEED:  WHEAT  MID- 
DLINGS, CORN  FEED  MEAL 
AND  SCREENINGS 

Spink  Milling  Company,  The, 
Washington,  Ind. 

Fine  Mixed  Mill  Feed 

MIXED  FEED:  WHEAT  MID- 
DLINGS, CORN  FEED  MEAL 
CORN  BRAN  AND  WHEAT 
SCREENINGS 

Ziliak  & Schafer  Milling  Company, 
Haubstadt,  Ind. 

Wheat  Shorts,  Screenings,  Corn  Bran 
and  Feed  Meal  

MIXED  FEED:  WHEAT  MID- 
DLINGS AND  RYE  MIDDLINGS 

Eckhart  Milling  Company,  B.  A., 
Chicago,  111. 

tfFlour  Middlings  

Starr  Mills,  South  Bend,  Ind. 

Wheat  & Rye  Middlings 

MIXED  FEED:  WHEAT  MID- 
DLINGS, SCREENINGS  AND  SALT 

Akin-Erskine  Milling  Company, 
Evansville,  Ind. 

Standard  Midlings  or  Shorts,  Ground 

Wheat  Screenings  and  Salt  63 

Standard  Midlings  or  Shorts,  Ground 

Wheat  Screenings  and  Salt  

Standard  Midlings  or  Shorts,  Ground 
Wheat  Screenings  and  Salt  


Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

percent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

4341 

6858 

Hartman  & Dotterer,  Bluffton. 

9.5 

3.0 

7.7 

11.0 

12.9 

7232 

5988 

T.  S.  Nugen,  Lewisville  

10.0 

4.0 

5.1 

15.0 

17.1 

7232 

7917 

Ballard  & Magenheimer, 

Haubstadt 

9.4 

4.0 

5.6 

15.0 

19.0 

7847 

5808 

Manufacturers  . 

10.6 

4.0 

4.2 

14.0 

15.2 

7847 

6905 

Manufacturers  

9.5 

4.0 

3.5 

14.0 

15.2 

7847 

7884 

Manufacturers  _ 

9.5 

4.0 

4.4 

14.0 

16.2 

7199 

5419 

Manufacturers  _ 

9.7 

2.8 

3.9 

12.0 

14.9 

7199 

6039 

Manufacturers  _ 

10.9 

2.8 

4.1 

12.0 

15.0 

8137 

7197 

Manufacturers  

10.4 

3.5 

3.7 

14.0 

14.0 

8291 

7922 

Manufacturers  

9.3 

4.5 

5.9 

16.5 

16.8 

8675 

7583 

S.  D.  Bailey  Co.,  Wanatah 

9.9 

4.0 

3.8 

15.0 

15.4 

6000 

7301 

Manufacturers  

8.5 

3.0 

3.9 

14.0 

14.7 

6032 

6138 

Uhl-Snider  Milling  Co., 

Connersville  

10.0 

4.0 

4.0 

14.0 

15.4 

6032 

6738 

Uhl-Snider  Milling  Co., 

Connersville  

9.1 

4.0 

38 

14.0 

14.7 

6032 

7817 

Ohio  Valley  Seed  Co.,  Evansville 

8.7 

4.0 

4.1 

14.0 

15.7 

tt  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished  53  Conflicting  guarantees 

62  Corn  feed  meal  not  identified 


67 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 


Tell  Oity  Flouring  Mills,  Tell  City,  Ind. 
Wheat  Middlings  and  Wheat  Sreen- 

ings  Seasoned  with  Salt 

Wheat  Middlings  and  Wheat  Sreen- 
ings  Seasoned  with  Salt 

MIXED  FEED:  WHEAT  MID- 
DLINGS, SCREENINGS  AND  OAT 
HULLS 

Lash  Flour  Mills,  The  Fred  B., 
Farraersburg,  Ind. 

Lashs  Extra  Mixed  Feed 

RYE  MIDDLINGS 

Bay  State  Milling  Company, 

Winona,  Minn. 

Rye  Middlings  54  

Rye  Middlings  55  

Washburn-Crosby  Company, 
Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Washburn-Crosby  Co’s  Rye  Middlings. 

Washburn-Crosby  Co’s  Rye  Middlings. 
Washbum-Crosby  Co’s  Rye  Middlings. 
Washburn-Crosby  Co’s  Rye  Middlings. 

rye  middlings  and  screen- 
ings 

Deutsch  & Sickert  Company, 

Milwaukee,  Wis. 

Rye  Middlings  including  Mill  Run 
Screenings  

Mueller,  E.  P.,  Chicago,  111. 

Rye  Middlings  and  Screenings 

Pillsbury  Flour  Mills  Company, 
Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Pillsbury’s  Rye  Middlings  with  Ground 
Screenings  Not  Exceeding  Mill  Run.. 
Pillsbury’s  Rye  Middlings  with  Ground 
Screenings  Not  Exceeding  Mill  Run.. 

MIXED  FEED:  RYE  BRAN  AND 
RYE  MIDDLINGS 

Fisher  & Fallgatter,  Waupaca,  Wis. 
Rye  Feed  

Friedrich  & Son,  C.  W.,  Dyer,  Ind. 

Rye  Mixed  Feed 

Hunter  & Company,  O.  L.,  Chicago,  111. 
Calumet  Rye  Feed  

North  Judson  Milling  Company, 

North  Judson,  Ind. 

Rye  Mixed  Feed  

Roper  & Brown,  Hobart,  Ind. 

Hobart  “Rye  Feed”  

BUCKWHEAT  HULLS 

Iroquois  Roller  Mills,  Rensselaer,  Ind. 
Buckwheat  Hulls  

64  Ground  screenings  present 


Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

6050 

5801 

Manufacturers  _.  

10.0 

4.0 

3.8 

14.0 

14.5 

6050 

8216 

T.  W.  Irwin,  Cannelton 

7.8 

4.0 

4.0 

14.0 

15.1 

6417 

5616 

Manufacturers  . __  __ 

10.7 

4.0 

3.2 

14.0 

14.9 

8189 

7482 

B.  I.  Holser  & Co.,  Walkerton.. 

8.2 

3.4 

3.6 

16.0 

16.5 

8189 

7829 

B.  I.  Holser  & Co.,  Walkerton.. 

8.6 

3.4 

3.5 

16.0 

17.2 

2174 

5876 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Lafayette  . 

8.6 

3.0 

3.4 

14.0 

16.1 

7018 

5698 

Harrison  Smith,  Terre  Haute 

8.6 

3.0 

3.7 

14.0 

18.4 

7018 

6229 

Simon  J.  Carroll,  Royal  Center. 

9.5 

3.0 

3.7 

14.0 

17.7 

7018 

6702 

A.  O.  Carter,  Martinsville 

8.7 

3.0 

3.7 

14.0 

16.9 

8761 

7714 

Covington  Grain  Co., 

Covington  ...  

8.7 

3.0 

3.7 

14.0 

15.8 

8731 

8279 

Luebcke  Bros.,  Crown  Point 

9.3 

3.5 

3.8 

16.1 

15.4 

8519 

7134 

Board  of  Trade  Feed  Store, 

Linton  

10.1 

3.5 

3.6 

15.0 

15.9 

8519 

7668 

Paul  Kuhn  & Co.,  Perrysville 

9.0 

3.5 

4.2 

15.0 

17.6 

8822 

7755 

Valentine  & Valentine,  Franklin 

9.2 

3.0 

3.5 

15.0 

15.8 

2715 

7359 

Manufacturers  

11.5 

2.0 

2.8 

12.0 

16.2 

5352 

7995 

Simon  J.  Carroll,  Bunker  Hill.. 

9.1 

3.0 

3.8 

14.0 

14.8 

8127 

7373 

Manufacturers  

10.4 

2.0 

2.4 

12.0 

13.1 

5993 

6453 

Manufacturers  

10.9 

2.0 

2.6 

13.0 

14.3 

7115 

5499 

Manufacturers  

9.6 

1.5 

1.7 

6.8 

6.8 

65  Screenings  present.  16  tons  removed  from  sale 


68 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 


GROUND  SCREENINGS  FROM 
WHEAT  AND  BARLEY 

Butler  & Company,  Edw.  J., 

Chicago,  111. 

Butler’s  Premium  Chop  Peed 

CORN  AND  OATS  CHOP 

American  Hominy  Company, 
Indianapolis,  Ind. 

ttCracked  Corn  and  Rolled  Oats 

Cracked  Corn  and  Rolled  Oats 

Ashbrook  Company,  The  J.  S., 
Mattoon,  111. 

Peerless  Corn  & Oats  Chop 

tfPeerless  Corn  & Oats  Chop 

Bash  & Company,  C.  E., 

Huntington,  Ind. 

C.  E.  Bash  & Co’s  Chop 

C.  E.  Bash  & Co’s  Chop 

Beck,  Delbert  F.,  Burlington,  Ind. 
Beck’s  Chop  Feed  

Bock,  Leonard,  Argos,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed 

Branch  Grain  & Seed  Company, 
Martinsville,  Ind. 

Horse  Feed  

Chapman-Boake  Company,  Decatur,  111. 
ttCorn  & Oats  Chop  

Combs  & Sons,  L.,  Vincennes,  Ind. 
Corn  & Oats  Feed  

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Company, 
Lafayette,  Ind. 

Corn  & Oats  Ground  5(5 

Goshen  Milling  Company,  Goshen,  Ind. 
Chop  Feed  

Hargrave  Bros.,  Russellville,  Ind. 

Com  & Oat  Chop  

Haynes  Milling  Company,  The, 
Portland,  Ind. 

Corn  & Oats  Chop  Feed 

Holliday  & Son,  John,  Greentown,  Ind. 
Chop  Feed  

Huntington  Mill  Company, 

Huntington,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

Indiana  Elevator  Company, 
Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Gold  Medal  Chop 

Gold  Medal  Chop 

Jones,  G.  W.,  Upland,  Ind. 

Corn  & Oats  Chop  


Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

8806 

7419 

Jay  Grain  Co.,  Mulberry 

10.2 

4.1 

4.0 

12.4 

12.4 

6578 

6852 

Chas.  L.  Stocker,  Evansville 

,7 

4.0 

4.5 

9.0 

10.2 

6578 

6984 

Richards  & Lawson,  Shelbyville 

9^3 

4.0 

3.8 

9.0 

9.7 

7983 

6482 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis. 

9.9 

3.0 

4.6 

10.0 

10  3 

7983 

7230 

Smith  Grocery  Co.,  Clinton 

9.9 

3.0 

4.2 

10.0 

- 9.4 

1749 

5538 

Manufacturers  

10.0 

3.9 

4.0 

9.5 

9.3 

1749 

0593 

Manufacturers  — . 

9.6 

3.9 

4.1 

9.5 

9.8 

1209 

5944 

Manufacturer  

10.4 

3.9 

3.7 

9.5 

10.0 

949 

6670 

Manufacturers  

10.1 

3.9 

4.4 

9.5 

10.4 

272 

6704 

Manufacturers  

10.1 

3.5 

4.3 

9.0 

9.6 

8590 

6025 

C.  F.  Carter,  Terre  Haute. 

10.4 

4.0 

4.0 

10.0 

9.7 

8070 

5685 

Manufacturers  

12.2 

3.0 

4.4 

8.0 

8.9 

786 

6790 

Manufacturers  

10.6 

3.9 

4.3 

9.5 

9.3 

3238 

6522 

Manufacturers  

10.7 

3.7 

5.1 

9.8 

11.2 

3990 

5704 

Manufacturers  

9.8 

3.0 

4.6 

9.0 

9.4 

93 

5956 

Manufacturers  _.  

10.0 

3.9 

4.0 

9.5 

9.8 

6188 

6875 

Manufacturers  

9.6 

3.0 

4.0 

9.0 

9.8 

494 

6588 

Manufacturers  

9.3 

3.7 

5.5 

11.0 

10.8 

5301 

6544 

Manufacturers  

10.4 

3.0 

3.5 

80 

10.5 

5301 

7738 

Manufacturers  

9.0 

3.0 

3.8 

8.0 

11, 

3212 

6339 

Manufacturer  — 

9.1 

3.5 

4.9 

9.0 

10  3 

ff  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished 


66  Corn  Feed  Meal  present.  Removed  from  sale. 
Relabeled  with  No.  8600 


69 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918' 

(continued) 


Number 

Crude 

Crude 

fat 

pro  Ltfiu 

,2 

Sample  secured  from 

<1> 

per  cent. 

per  cent. 

Label 

i T> 

1 73 

i V 

*3 

56 

o 

c 

la 

U 0> 
C3  O 

o § 

C 

3 

O 

1 ^ 

& 8 
O 5 

2 

3 

Kuhn  & Son,  John  H., 

Michigan  City,  Ind. 

5331 

6327 

Manufacturers  

Ifrl 

3.5 

3.9 

8.8 

10.8 

Ligonier  Milling  Company, 

Ligonier,  Ind. 

Ligonier  Milling  Co’s  Corn  & Oats 

378 

7512 

Lyon  & Greenleaf,  Ligonier 

9.9 

3.9 

4.0 

9.5 

10.5 

Noftsger,  Benjamin,  Rochester,  Ind. 

flnrn  and  Oats  C!hnp 

2051 

6622 

Manufacturer  

10.6 

3.5 

3.9 

9.0 

9.9 

Peru  Milling  Company,  The,  Peru,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  _ _ _ __  

19 

6611 

Manufacturers  

10.3 

3.2 

4.0 

8.8 

8.9 

Pitman,  II.  E.,  Bedford,  Ind. 

387 

5925 

Manufacturer  

10.9 

3.2 

4.1 

8.8 

9.5 

Pyrmont  Mills  Company, 

Pyrmont,  Ind. 

5839 

6217 

Manufacturers  

8.3 

3.9 

4.9 

9.5 

9.3 

Reed  Feed  Store,  Chas.,  Rochester,  Ind. 

3171 

6626 

Manufacturers  _ 

10.3 

3.5 

5.3 

8.8 

10.3 

Roach  & Rothenberger,  Delphi,  Ind. 

Corn  and  Oats  Chop 

284 

6945 

Manufacturers  

9.5 

3.9 

4.6 

9.5 

10.0 

South  Side  Cereal  Mills, 

Fort  Wayne,  Ind. 

Corn  and  Oats  Chops 

5403 

5529 

Manufacturers  _ 

11.7 

3.5 

3.4 

9.0 

8.6 

Steckley,  George,  Kendallville,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed 

405 

6506 

Manufacturer  _ 

10.9 

4.0 

5.0 

10.0 

11.2 

Studebaker  & Son,  John,  Bluffton,  Ind. 

Corn  & Oats  Chop  _ _ _ 

1948 

7968 

Studebaker  Grain  & Seed  Co., 

Van  Bnren 

9.7 

3.9 

4.2 

9.5 

9.8 

Sullivan  Mill  & Elevator  Company, 

Sullivan,  Ind. 

Corn  & Oats  Chop ___ 

2959 

5589 

Manufacturers 

12.2 

3.5 

4.3 

9.0 

9.7 

Veirs  & Wicks,  Rochester,  Ind. 

Veirs  & Wicks’  Chop  Feed  

321 

6621 

Manufacturers  . _ 

10.5 

4.0 

5.5 

10.0 

10.5 

Wakarusa  Milling  Company, 

Wakarusa,  Ind. 

Wakarusa  Corn  & Oats  Chop.. 

1250 

6532 

Manufacturers 

9.6 

3.9 

4.3 

9.5 

11.5 

Wakarusa  Corn  & Oats  Chop 

1250 

7272 

Ullery  & Son,  South  Bend 

9.3 

3.9 

4.0 

9.5 

11.2 

Watson,  Gilf.  L.,  Redkey,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  _ __  _ 

8187 

7088 

Manufacturer  _ 

9.7 

3.5 

4.0 

9.0 

9.9 

Wilkinson  & Company,  T.  B., 

Knightstown,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  __  _ 

3456 

6254 

Manufacturers 

10.3 

3.3 

4.4 

8.5 

9.6 

Yountsvillo  Mill,  The,  Yountsville,  Ind. 
ttCorn  & Oats  Chop _ 

T.  B.  dyne  Orawfnrdsville. 

3082 

6914 

10.5 

3.5 

4.5 

9.0 

10.1 

CORN,  OATS  AND  RYE 

Goshen  Milling  Company,  The, 

Goshen,  Ind. 

Island  Park  Chop 

5923 

8129 

Manufacturers 

9.4 

3.0 

3.5 

8.5 

11.7 

Portland  Equity  Exchange,  The, 

Portland,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed 

8034 

5957 

Manufacturers  _ - 

10.7 

3.0 

3.7 

9.0 

11.1 

Chon  Feed 

8034 

6833 

Manufacturers  

10.2 

3.0 

3.3 

9.0 

9.7 

ft  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished 


70 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 


Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent,  i 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

1 

4077 

5543 

Manufacturers  

11.4 

3.2 

4.1 

9.5 

10.8 

0200 

7142 

Farmers  Supply  Co.,  Spencer 

10.2 

4.0 

4.4 

8.0 

10.2 

6200 

7269 

Acme-Evans  Co.,  South  Bend 

10.4 

4.0 

3.2 

8.0 

8.2 

8165 

5440 

Manufacturer  

11.9 

3.5 

3.9 

9.5 

9.3 

8165 

6094 

Westport  Grain  Co.,  Westport.. 

10.2 

3.5 

3.7 

9.5 

9.4 

5549 

Manufaetiirers  

11.9 

2.7 

10.4 

7400 

6492 

Manufacturers  

10.0 

3.0 

3 9 

8.0 

10.2 

7400 

7554 

Manufacturers  — 

9.6 

3.0 

4.0 

8.0 

12.5 

6010 

5912 

Goodrich  Bros.  Hay  & Grain 

Co.,  Farmland — 

9.6 

3.5 

3.0 

9.5 

12.8 

6010 

7520 

L.  Brand,  Muncie — 

11.0 

3.5 

4.5 

9.5 

11.1 

6600 

6615 

Manufacturers  

9.7 

3.0 

4.2 

9.0 

10.0 

8130 

7041 

Manufaetnrer 

11.3 

19  1 

3.5 

3.8 

8.0 

9.5 

7703 

5992 

Manuf 

4.6 

9.0 

10.0 

2134 

7304 

Manufacturer,* 

1Z.  1 

o ft 

o.o 

k 0 

9.5 

11.0 

- 5122 

5504 

Manilf  aetprers 

y.o 

11.0 

0.0 

2.7 

o.v 

3.9 

8.5 

9.0 

5122 

6098 

Manufacturers 

12.6 

2.7 

4.0 

8.5 

9.1 

2444 

6069 

Marmf  aeturer  _ 

12.5 

3.5 

3.8 

9.0 

9.9 

3546 

6830 

Manufacturers 

9.8 

3.0 

4.6 

9.0 

9.8 

6089 

5647 

F.  E.  Badgley  Milling  Co., 

Amboy  : 

. 10.4 

3.3 

4.9 

8.8 

9.9 

Thomas  & Son,  A.  R.,  Markle,  Ind. 
Corn,  Oats  & Rye  Chop  


CORN,  OATS,  BARLEY  AND  OAT 
HULLS 

Acme-Evans  Company, 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Acme  C.  O.  & B.  Chop 

Acme  C.  O.  & B.  Chop 

CORN,  OATS  AND  WHEAT 

Claypole,  Geo.  M.,  Sardinia,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

Chop  Feed  


King  Grain  Company,  Wabash,  Ind. 
*Wheat  Corn  & Oats  


CORN,  OATS,  RYE,  WHEAT,  CORN 
FEED  MEAL  AND  CORN  BRAN 

Pancost  Milling  Company,  Elkhart,  Ind. 

“Pancost”  Chop  Feed  

“Pancost”  Chop  Feed  


CORN,  OATS,  RYE,  WHEAT,  CORN 
FEED  MEAL  AND  SCREENINGS 

Goodrich  Bros.  Hay  & Grain  Co., 
Winchester,  Ind. 

“Climax  Chop”  


“Climax  Chop” 


CORN,  OATS,  RYE,  WHEAT,  CORN 
FEED  MEAL.  CORN  BRAN  AND 
SCREENINGS 

Myers  & Son,  Joseph  H.,  Chili,  Ind. 
Myers’  Chop  Feed  


CORN,  OATS  AND  SCREENINGS 

Walker,  H.  L.,  Montpelier,  Ind. 
Chop  Feed  


CORN,  OATS  AND  CORN  BRAN 


Creitz  & Deardoff,  Centerville,  Ind. 
Chop  Feed  


Fyke  Milling  Company,  Lagrange,  Ind. 
F'yke’s  Chop  Feed  


Garrett  & Funk,  Liberty  Center,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

Chop  Feed  


Gilman,  S.  B.,  Summitville,  Ind. 
Gilman’s  Corn  and  Oats  Chop. 

Pennville  Milling  Company, 
Pennville,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  


CORN,  OATS,  CORN  FEED  MEAL 
AND  CORN  BRAN 

Amboy  Milling  Company,  Amboy,  Ind. 
Chop  Feed  


Not  tagged 


7 1 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Sample  secured  from 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Boldt  & Son,  Waynetown,  Ind. 

7926 

7716 

Manufacturers 

9.9 

2.8 

3.6 

8.7 

10.4 

Burrell  & Morgan,  Elkhart,  Ind. 

Burrell  & Morgan’s  Chop  Feed  _ 

6494 

Manufacturers  

10.7 

3.0 

4.1 

8.0 

10.3 

7288 

Burrell  & Morgan,  Mishawaka 

10.0 

3.0 

4.0 

8.0 

10.5 

5835 

Manufacturers  __ 

10.0 

3.0 

5.3 

8.0 

10.8 

Butler  Milling  Company,  Butler,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

6940 

7401 

Manufacturers 

9.4 

3.0 

3.8 

8.7 

10.5 

Clayton  Milling  Company, 

Clayton,  Ind. 

Chnp  Feed 

7663 

6572 

Manufacturers 

9.0 

3.0 

4.6 

9.0 

9.7 

Coppes  Bros.  & Zook,  Nappanee,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

6009 

6527 

Manufacturers  __  _ 

9.9 

3.0 

3.7 

8.0 

10.3 

6009 

7303 

J.  W.  Appleman,  Lagrange 

8.7 

3.0 

4.5 

8.0 

11.3 

DeBaun  Mill,  Terre  Haute,  Ind. 

Old  Reliable  Chop  Feed  __  

3338 

6660 

Yaw  Bros.,  Terre  Haute 

11.1 

3.5 

3.5 

9.0 

9.3 

F'inkle,  Jacob,  Warren.  Ind. 

Chop  Fppd 

7661 

€096 

Manufacturer 

11.8 

3.9 

3.9 

9.5 

9.4 

Chop  Feed  

7661 

6862 

Manufacturer 

10.4 

3.9 

4.0 

9.5 

9.6 

Gas  City  Elevator  Company, 

Gas  City,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  _ 

7998 

6058 

Manufacturers  _ __ 

11.6 

3.0 

3.6 

9.0 

11.0 

Chop  Feed  

7998 

6400 

Manufacturers 

10.9 

3.0 

4.0 

9.0 

9.8 

Geneva  Milling  & Grain  Company, 

Geneva,  Ind. 

Egly’s  Chop  Feed  

6740 

6030 

Manufacturers 

11.3 

2.8 

4.1 

8.7 

9.2 

Graft,  C.  V.,  Winchester,  Ind. 

Graft’s  Chop  Feed  

8166 

5895 

City  Mills  & Elevator, 

Winchester  

10.5 

3.5 

4.4 

8.5 

10  3 

Graft’s  Chop  Feed 

8166 

7029 

Manufacturer 

11.3 

3.5 

4.3 

8.5 

10.0 

Heckman  & Company,  Decatur,  Ind. 

Heckman’s  Chop  Feed 

3420 

5420 

Fornax  Milling  Co.,  Decatur 

9.4 

3.0 

4.5 

9.0 

9.7 

Hollett-Winders  Grain  Company,  The, 

Arcadia,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  __  

5780 

6089 

Manufacturers 

11.5 

3.0 

5.4 

9.0 

10.4 

Huntington  Milling  Company, 

Huntington,  Ind. 

“Chon  Feed” 

8586 

7593 

Manufacturers  

8.5 

2.7 

5.0 

8.5 

10.9 

Jones  & Son,  C!.  N.,  Wabash,  Ind. 

“A”  Chop  Feed  

5191 

5877 

Manufacturers  

10.8 

3.0 

5 2 

9.0 

10.3 

“A”  Chop  Feed  - _ 

5191 

6598 

Manufacturers 

10.3 

3.0 

3.7 

9.0 

9.0 

Jonesboro  Milling  Company, 

Jonesboro,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  _ .. 

7999 

6405 

Manufacturers  __ 

9.1 

2.8 

4.6 

8.7 

9.7 

Kiest  Milling  Company.  Knox,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed 

7970 

6260 

Manufacturers 

9.5 

3.0 

4.3 

9.0 

9.7 

Chon  Feed  

7970 

7477 

Manufacturers 

8.6 

3.0 

5!s 

9.0 

11.2 

Lefforge,  Otto,  Rossville.  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  __  _ 

7932 

7336 

Manufacturer 

10.9 

3.0 

4.3 

8.0 

10.0 

Matthews  Roller  Mills,  Matthews,  Ind. 

Moore’s  Chop  Feed  . _ 

6650 

6337 

Manufacturer  

10.7 

2.8 

4.1 

8.7 

9.7 

Mattix  & Company,  N.  W., 

Lebanon,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  _ 

6883 

7319 

Manufacturer  

9.7 

3.0 

4.5 

9.0 

10.0 

72 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

percent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

T3 

a 

1 

Maumee  Valley  Mills,  New  Haven,  Ind. 

' 

4382 

5515 

Reed  Bros.,  Fort  Wayne  ... 

11.4 

3.5 

4 3 

9.0 

9.6 

4382 

6027 

Manufacturers  

13.2 

3.5 

4.1 

9.0 

8.6 

4382 

8179 

Manufacturers 

10.0 

3.5 

4.4 

9.0 

10.0 

Monroe  Grain  Hay  & Milling  Company, 

Monroe,  Ind. 

340S 

7098 

Manufacturers 

10.5 

3.0 

3.0 

8.0 

9.7 

McCoy  Elevator,  R.  A., 

Greensburg,  Ind. 

8466 

7858 

Manufacturers 

9.1 

3.5 

3 8 

9.0 

9.6 

Naber  & Company,  Chas.  F., 

Alexandria,  Ind. 

'7196 

6065 

M anufacturers 

11.5 

2.5 

4.7 

8.0 

10.2 

N a. hers  Chop 

7196 

7577 

Manufacturers 

9.1 

2.5 

4.1 

8.0 

9.3 

Nading  Grain  Company,  Wm., 

Greensburg.  Ind. 

Nading’s  Ground  Feed 

7710 

7857 

Manufacturers 

10.1 

3.3 

4.4 

9.5 

9.7 

Niezer  & Company,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind. 

Niezer’s  Chop  Feed 

6269 

8178 

Niezer  & Co.,  Monroeville 

9.2 

2.8 

5.0 

8.7 

10.8 

Oxford  Feed  Mill,  Oxford,  Ind. 

Deed’s  “Chop  Feed” 

4990 

5993 

Manufacturers 

11.3 

3 0 

4.3 

9.0 

10.1 

Pierceton  Grain  Company, 

Pierceton,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  . ___  ___  

4429 

6028 

DeBolt  & Niswonger, 

Monroeville  __ 

13.1 

3.0 

3.8 

8.0 

8.9 

Chop  Feed  

4429 

8171 

DeBolt  & Niswonger, 

Monroeville  _ 

9.3 

3.0 

4.3 

8.0 

98 

Rouch,  W.  E.,  Mishawaka,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed 

8225 

7547 

Manufacturer  

9.8 

3.5 

3.8 

9.0 

10.3 

Schaefer,  Carl  H.,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Schaefer's  Special  Chop  Feed 

7190 

6426 

Manufacturer  

9.2 

3.0 

5.0 

8.0 

9.3 

Sheridan  Milling  Company, 

Sheridan,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed 

5964 

5729 

Manufacturers  

8.5 

2.7 

4.9 

9.0 

10.2 

Chop  Feed  _ _ 

5964 

6374 

Mendenhall-Weaver  Co., 

Sheridan  

9.4 

2.7 

4.4 

9.0 

9.7 

Smith  & Company,  A.,  Sheridan,  Ind. 

New  Chop  Feed 

6264 

5732 

Manufacturers  . 

8 2 

3.0 

6.4 

8.8 

10.7 

New  Chop  Feed 

6264 

7331 

Manufacturers  

m9 

3.0 

4.7 

8.8 

10.0 

Smith  Company,  C.  E.,  Wabash,  Ind. 

Smith’s  Chop  Feed 

5300 

5550 

Manufacturers  _ 

13.1 

3.0 

3.7 

9.0 

10.0 

Smith  Grain  & Milling  Company, 

Warsaw,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

6521 

7170 

Green  Bros.  & Oldfather, 

Warsaw  

10.9 

3.0 

3.4 

9.0 

10  1 

South  Side  Feed  Store,  Peru,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed 

7530 

6610 

Manufacturers  __ 

9.6 

2.8 

4 3 

8.8 

9.4 

St.  John,  H.  E.,  Albany,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

6365 

7127 

Manufacturer  

9.6 

3.0 

3.6 

8.7 

10.4 

Sturgeon  Grain  & Coal  Company, 

Muncie,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

7223 

7035 

Manufacturer 

11.8 

3.5 

4.1 

8.8 

10.4 

Swayzee  Milling  Company. 

Swayzee.  Ind. 

Chop  Feed 

5208 

6873 

Manufacturers 

10.0 

3.0 

5.2 

9.0 

9.9 

Swayzees  Market,  Marion,  Ind. 

Swayzee’s  Chop  Feed  

1 5522' 

6368 

Manufacturers  

10.2 

3.0 

4.2 

9.0 

10.4 

73 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


■ 

Number 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Label 

fl 

#o 

Sample  secured  from 

Official 

o 

<D  O 

GO 

G 

5 cs 

R « 

03  W 

•g  u 

Is 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Thomas  Milling  Company,  Marion,  Ind. 

8452 

6357 

Manufacturers 

10.7 

3.0 

4.4 

9.0 

9.4 

Tresselt  & Sons,  C.,  Ft.  Wayne,  Ind. 

7209 

7112 

Manufacturers 

9.7 

3.5 

3.9 

9.0 

10.0 

Tuttle  & Company,  R., 

Columbia  City,  Ind. 

Chop  "Feed  _ 

6945 

6697 

Manufacturers 

9.2 

3.0 

5.3 

9.0 

10.0 

Ulrey  & Company,  A.  A., 

Fairmount,  Ind. 

Chon  Feed 

6241 

6056 

Manufacturers 

12.3 

2.5 

4.0 

8.0 

10.4 

Walker  & Son.,  J.  M.,  Middletown,  Ind. 
Walker’s  Chop  Feed  __  

8164 

6282 

Manufacturers 

10.3 

3.0 

5.9 

8.0 

10.2 

Walton  & Whisler,  Atlanta,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

5781 

6091 

Manufacturers  _ 

11.3 

3.0 

4.2 

8.7 

10.0 

Wellington  Milling  Company, 

Anderson,  Ind. 

Wellington’s  A.  X.  A.  Chop  Feed 

5145 

6289 

Manufacturers  _ _ 

10.1 

3.0 

4.5 

9.0 

9.3 

West  Middleton  Mill  & Elevator 
Company,  West  Middleton,  Ind. 
Chop  Feed  

6992 

5725 

W.  E.  Hayes,  Kokomo 

10.9 

3.0 

4.9 

9.0 

9.7 

Chop  Feed  __  _ _ 

6992 

7600 

W.  E.  Hayes,  Kokomo 

9.3 

3.0 

4.5 

9.0 

10.4 

CORN,  OATS,  CORN  FEED  MEAL, 
CORN  BRAN  AND  SCREENINGS 

Clover  Leaf  Flour  Mills,  Kokomo,  Ind. 
Clover  Leaf  Chop  Feed  57 

4448 

5723 

Manufacturers  

11.2 

3.0 

4.4 

7.9 

9.3 

Clover  Leaf  Chop  Feed 

4448 

6880 

Manufacturers 

9.5 

3.0 

4.3 

7.9 

10.7 

CORN,  OATS,  CORN  FEED  MEAL, 
CORN  BRAN  AND  MILL  SWEEP- 
INGS 

Nodine,  W.  J.,  Waterloo,  Ind. 

Nodine’s  Chop 

7723 

8237 

Manufacturer 

9.2 

2.4 

2.9 

8.3 

11.8 

CORN,  OATS,  CORN  FEED  MEAL, 
CORN  BRAN  AND  COB  MEAL 

Smock  & Caca,  Noblesville,  Ind. 

Caca’s  Chop  Feed 

4483 

6086 

Manufacturers 

10.6 

3.5 

4.1 

9.0 

9.5 

CORN,  OATS,  CORN  FEED  MEAL, 
CORN  BRAN,  COB  MEAL  AND 
SCREENINGS  FROM  WHEAT, 
OATS  AND  CORN 

Springer,  W.  D.,  Fortville,  Ind. 

Mixed  Feed _ 

7303 

7682 

Hardin  Grain  Co.,  Fortville 

8.5 

2.0 

4.8 

7.0 

10.6 

CORN,  OATS,  RYE  AND  CORN 
FEED  MEAL 

Hershman  & Son,  Tipton,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  - 

4898 

6095 

Manufacturers 

11.1 

3.2 

4.6 

8.7 

10.4 

CORN,  OATS,  RYE,  CORN  FEED 
MEAL  AND  CORN  BRAN 

Bluffton  Milling  Company, 

Bluffton,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

3397 

6861 

Manufacturers 

10.2 

3.0 

4.2 

9.0 

9.6 

Pearson,  W.  W.,  Upland,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed 

5952 

7648 

Manufacturer  

9.2 

2.5 

4.2 

8.0 

10.4 

57  Wheat  screenings  not  identified 


74 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Number 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Label 

c 

.2 

Sample  secured  from 

Official 

o 

c 

5 § 

*3  ^ 

l£ 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Radcliff  Flour  & Feed  Exchange,  E.  M., 
Pierceton,  Ind. 

7732 

8052 

Manufacturer^ 

8.8 

3.0 

3.1 

9.0 

12.3 

CORN,  OATS,  RYE,  CORN  FEED 
MEAL,  WHEAT  MIDDLINGS  AND 
CORN  BRAN 

Starr  Mills,  South  Bend,  Ind. 

60021 

7302 

Manufacturers  

9.1 

3.0 

4.5 

9.0 

11.1 

6002 

7504 

Manufacturers  _ — _ 

9.0 

3.0 

5.1 

9.0 

11.2 

CORN,  OATS,  CORN  FEED  MEAL, 
CORN  BRAN  AND  CORN 

SCREENINGS 

Lemon  Milling  Company,  The, 

Bedford,  Ind. 

6804 

5920 

Manufacturers  

9.7 

3.0 

5.8 

8.5 

10.4 

CORN,  OATS,  WHEAT,  CORN  FEED 
MEAL,  CORN  BRAN  AND  CORN 
SCREENINGS 

Wabash  Milling  Company, 

Wabash,  Ind. 

Sirmmertnn’s  Chop 

5969 

6605 

Manufacturers  

10.4 

2.0 

3.4 

8.0 

9.3 

CORN,  OATS,  WHEAT  AND 

SCREENINGS 

Phillips  & Ross  Grain  Company, 
Rosedale,  Ind. 

Mill  Feed 

3096 

7628 

Manufacturers  

10.8 

2.0 

3.2 

5.0 

10.4 

CORN,  OATS,  WHEAT,  WEEDS 
SEEDS,  COB  MEAL,  CHAFF  AND 
SCREENINGS 

Amo  Mill  & Elevator  Company, 
Bargers ville,  Ind. 
f!hr>p  Fppd 

8881 

6011 

Manufacturers 

11.2 

3.0 

3.2 

9.0 

10.7 

CORN,  OATS,  WHEAT  BRAN,  CORN 
BRAN  AND  SCREENINGS 

Bridgeton  Milling  Company, 

Bridgeton,  Ind. 

Mived  Fepd 

6621 

7625 

Manufacturers  

10.0 

4.0 

4.1 

9.3 

11.5 

CORN,  OATS,  WHEAT  BRAN,  MID- 
DLINGS AND  SCREENINGS 

Moutoux,  P.  & H.,  Evansville,  Ind. 

“X  L”  Dry  Mixed  Feed 

7997 

6774 

Manufacturers  

9.0 

2.5 

4.5 

9.0 

11.3 

CORN,  OATS  AND  CORN  FEED 
MEAL 

Barlow,  C.  M.,  Kokomo,  Ind. 

Harlow’s  Clbinp  Food 

5938 

5721 

Manufacturer 

11.0 

3.0 

4.1 

9.0 

9.0 

Barlow’s  Chop  Feed 

5938 

7599 

Manufacturer 

8.9 

3.0 

5.0 

9.0 

10.3 

Crawford  Feed  Store,  Jay  S., 

Crown  Point,  Ind. 

Crawford’s  Chop  Feed  

5240 

7363 

J.  J.  Baldwin,  Crown  Point 

11.4 

3.0 

4.1 

8.0 

10.3 

Fornax  Milling  Company,  Decatur,  Ind. 
Fornax  Chop  _ 

7201 

6037 

Manufacturers 

10.6 

3.5 

4.7 

9.0 

10.1 

Hamilton  & Kellner,  Rensselaer,  Ind. 

“A”  Chop  Feed  _ __  _ _ 

5087 

5500 

Kellner  & Callahan,  Rensselaer. 

10.8 

3.0 

4.4 

8.0 

10.5 

75 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 


Havens,  P.  W.,  Hartford  City,  Ind. 

Havens’  Chop  Peed  

Havens’  Chop  Feed  

Hibbits  Mill  Company,  Muncie,  Ind. 

Hibbits  Chop  Feed 

Hibbits  Chop  Feed  

Jay  Grain  Company,  The, 

Elwood,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

Jordan,  Geo.  M.,  Vincennes,  Ind. 

G.  M.  J.  Horse  & Mule  Chop 

Kennedy  Bros.,  Crawfordsville,  Ind. 
Chop  Feed  

Klondike  Milling  Company, 

Danville,  Ind. 

Klondike  Chop  Feed  

Klondike  Chop  Feed  

Miller  Flour  & Feed  Company,  The 
Wesley,  South  Bend,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

Chop  Feed  

Paxson,  C.  E.,  Elkhart,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

Chop  Feed  

Rakestraw.  H.  E.,  Oakford,  Ind. 

“A”  Perfection  Chop  Feed  

River  Side  Barn  & Feed  Store, 

Marion,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

Russell  & Company,  Portland,  Ind. 
Chop  Feed  

Sellars,  James  S.,  Crawfordsville,  Ind. 
Chop  Feed 

Wells,  Guy  M.,  Knox,  Ind. 

Wells’  Chop  Feed  

Wiegman  & Zelt,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind. 
Chop  Feed  


CORN,  OATS,  CORN  FEED  MEAL 
AND  SCREENINGS 

Hammel  Milling  Company, 

Fremont,  Ind. 

Chop  Feed  

Timbrook  & Haifley,  Auburn,  Ind. 
Auburn  Roller  Mills  Chop 

CORN,  OATS,  CORN  FEED  MEAL, 
SCREENINGS  AND  MILL 
SWEEPINGS 

City  Mills,  South  Whitley,  Ind. 

Scrap  Feed  

CORN,  OATS,  CORN  BRAN  AND 
SCREENINGS 

Farmers  Milling  & Elevator  Company, 
Veedersburg,  Ind. 

No.  1 Chop  Feed  

No.  1 Chop  Feed  


Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

c 

1 

7688 

6006 

Manufacturer  

11.7 

3.5 

4.1 

8.5 

9.0 

7688 

7046 

Manufacturer  __ 

11.7 

3.5 

4.1 

8.5 

8.6 

3708 

7016 

Manufacturers  

10.1 

3.2 

4.0 

9.0 

10.4 

3708 

7518 

Manufacturers  

10.0 

3.2 

4.5 

9.0 

10.0 

7021 

6422 

Manufacturers  

9.8 

3.8 

4.3 

9.0 

9.8 

7619 

7221 

Manufacturers  _ 

9.4 

3.5 

4.1 

9.0 

9.3 

5211 

6921 

Manufacturers  

9.6 

3.0 

4.3 

8.5 

9.1 

4430 

5578 

Manufacturers  __  

11.1 

3.0 

4.0 

9.0 

9.8 

4430 

6571 

Manufacturers  

9.7 

3,0 

4.3 

9.0 

9.3 

4111 

7275 

Manufacturers  

9.9 

3.5 

3.9 

9.0 

10.1 

4111 

7538 

Manufacturers  

10.0 

3.5 

4.6 

9.0 

11.1 

6407 

6497 

Manufacturer  

11.1 

3.0 

3.9 

9.0 

9.8 

6407 

7555 

Manufacturer  

9.9 

3.0 

4.4 

9.0 

11.1 

6496 

6881 

Chamberlin  & Templin,  Kokomo 

8.8 

3.5 

4.1 

9.0 

9.4 

7130 

6360 

Manufacturers  

10.2 

2.8 

4.1 

8.5 

10.4 

6798 

6832 

Manufacturers  — 

10.0 

3.0 

3.6 

8.7 

9.7 

5213 

6918 

Manufacturer  

10.0 

4 3.0 

3.8 

8.5 

8.9 

6065 

6256 

Manufacturer  

9.9 

3.2 

4.1 

8.3 

10.4 

5179 

5514 

Manufacturers  _ 

11.4 

3.2 

4.2 

8.0 

10.1 

4048 

7390 

Manufacturers  

10.8 

2.5 

2.8 

9.0 

11.1 

6310 

6570 

H.  W.  Timbrook,  Auburn 

9.2 

3.9 

4.3 

9.5 

10.5 

8027 

8075 

Manufacturers 

9 PJ 

K A 

q n 

in  Q 

6051 

Manufacturers  5 5 

0.4 

10.9 

Li,  O 

3 5 

0.4 

3.9 

o.U 

9.0 

IU.o 

9.3 

. 5597 

7158 

Manufacturers  

10  3 

1 3.5 

4.2 

1 9.0 

9.7 

76 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Number 

£ 

.2 

‘■C 

o 

Sample  secured  from 

o 

56 

CD 

o 

£ 

Label 


Crude 

Crude 

fat 

protein 

S-jJ 

per  cent. 

per  cent. 

R 0) 

1 T3 

■o 

11 

Guar 

antee 

a 

£ 

Guar 

antee 

c 

1 

Pn 

CORN,  OATS,  CORN  BRAN,  CORN 
FEED  MEAL  AND  GRAIN 
SCREENINGS 

Haller  & Walker,  Eaton,  Ind. 

Haller  & Walker’s  Chop  Feed  

CORN,  OATS  AND  CORN  SCREEN- 
INGS 

Canal  Elevator  Company,  Peru,  Ind. 

’ Chop  Peed  

Chop  Feed  

CORN,  CORN  FEED  MEAL,  OAT 
MIDDLINGS,  OAT  SHORTS,  OAT 
HULLS,  CORN  BRAN  AND 
WHEAT  SCREENINGS 

Iroquois  Roller  Mills,  Rensselaer,  Ind. 
Mixed  Chop  Feed  

CORN,  BARLEY,  OAT  MIDDLINGS, 
OAT  SHORTS,  OAT  HULLS  AND 
SCREENINGS  FROM  WHEAT, 
OATS,  BARLEY  AND  FLAX 

International  Sugar  Feed  Company, 
Minneapolis,  Minn. 

International  Chop  Feed  58  

CORN,  WHEAT  BRAN,  WHEAT 
MIDDLINGS  AND  HOMINY  FEED 

Acme-Evans  Company, 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Acme  Farm  Feed 

OATS,  CORN  FEED  MEAL  AND 
CORN  SCREENINGS 

McMillen  & Son,  J.  W., 

Fort  Wayne,  Ind. 

Eagle  Brand  Cbtop  Feed  

FEED  MEAL  FROM  CORN,  KAFIR, 
MILO  AND  WHEAT 

Ashbrook  Company,  The  J.  S., 
Mattoon,  111. 

Diamond  A Feed  Meal  59 

GROUND  SCREENINGS  FROM 
CORN  AND  OATS 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Company, 
Crawfordsville,  Ind. 

Ground  Corn  and  Oats  Screenings 

ALFALFA  MEAL 

Badenoch  Company,  J.  J.,  Chicago,  111. 

Alfalfa  Meal  

tfAlfalfa  Meal  

tfAlfalfa  Meal  

Denver  Alfalfa  Milling  & Products 
Company,  Hartman,  Colo. 

tfAlfalfa  Meal  

ft  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished 

68  Barley  not  identified 


886 


6598 


7185 


8439 


8138 


8209 


7040 


6608 

8059 


6953 


6033 


8014 


8369 


7234 


8208  6913 


6535  5512 
6535  7568 


Eaton  Grain  Co.,  Eaton 


Manufacturers 

Manufacturers 

Manufacturers 


Niczer  & Co.,  Monroeville 


Salem  Cooperative  Assoc., 
Salem  


10.8 


10.1 

8.7 


9.5 


9.5 


9.4 


Manufacturers  9.5 


Smith  Grocery  Co.,  Clinton 10.4 


Manufacturers 


9.3 


Hoosier  Wholesale  Grocery  Co. 
South  Bend  


2.3 


2.0 


5.0 


2.5 


3.0 


3.0 


3.4 


6.0 


3.6 


3.4 


3.6 


7.5  10.1 


8.8  9.7 

8.8  10.5 


7.5  10.7 


4.0  10.5  I 10.3 


4.3  12.0  15.2 


7.5  10.0 


10.0  8 8 


9.0  9.8 


7.8 

1.0 

1.6 

13.0 

15.2 

8.1 

1.0 

1.7 

13.0 

14.4 

7,1 

1.0 

1.8 

13.0 

14.9 

9.9 

1.5 

1.8 

12.0 

15.3 

69  Withdrawn.  Conflicting  guarantees 


77 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Edinger  & Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

tfArrow  Alfalfa  Meal  _ _ _ 

8300' 

5888 

O.  L.  Cauble,  Pekin 

7.9 

1.0 

2.2 

12.0 

13.8 

Edwards  & Loomis  Company, 

Chicago,  111. 

tfRed  Comb  Alfalfa  Meal  

3001 

7496 

J.  C.  Barrett,  South  Bend 

8.1 

1.0 

2.4  13.5 

14.5 

Golden  Grain  Milling  Company, 

East  St.  Louis,  111. 

Golden  Grain  Alfalfa  Meal 60  _ 

6291 

6920 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Crawfordsville 

18.1 

1.5 

0.9 

14.0 

11.2 

Hurst  & Company,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

tfAlfalfa  Meal 

8484 

6075 

Manufacturers 

7.1 

1.5 

2.1 

12.0 

12.8 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Alfalfa  Meal 

8079 

8021 

Man  nf  netnrprs 

6.8 

0.5 

1.6 

12.0 

13.4 

Peters  Mill  Company,  M.  C., 

Omaha,  Neb. 

“Lucern”  . ___  _ _ 

3470 

6642 

Prater-Mottier  Co.,  Terre  Haute 

9.6 

0.5 

2.1 

12.0 

15.7 

Purina  Mills,  Branch,  Ralston  Purina 

Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Purina  Alfalfa  Meal . 

7352 

5545 

Darting  Rr,  Co.  Elwnnd 

8.6 

1.5 

1.7 

14.0 

14  7 

Purina  Alfalfa  Maal  61  

7352 

6418 

Harting  & Co.,  Elwood 

8 2 

1.5 

1.6 

14.0 

12  0 

ttPurina  Alfalfa  Meal  _ _ 

7352 

8328 

L.  Thorn  & Sons,  New  Albany.. 

7.1 

1.5 

1.5 

14.0 

13  0 

Union  Grain  & Coal  Company,  The, 

Anderson,  Ind. 

ttUnion  Alfalfa  Meal  . 

6700 

6063 

Pendleton  Feed  & Fuel  Co., 

Pendleton  _.  

10.1 

1.0 

1.3 

12.0 

16.4 

Union  Alfalfa  Meal 

6700 

6285 

E.  K.  Sowash,  Middletown 

8.9 

1.0 

1.8 

12.0 

14.1 

Weiss  Alfalfa  Stock  Pood  Co.,  The  Otto 

Wichita,  Kansas 

ttPure  Dustless  Alfalfa  

2098 

5488 

Richard  Hagans,  Greenfield 

7.8 

1.5 

2.2 

14.0 

16.7 

BLOOD  MEAL 

• 

Darling  & Company,  Chicago,  111. 

ttDarling’s  Blood  Meal  _ __  

6309 

6768 

Edw.  F.  Goeke  Co.,  Evansville.. 

10.2 

0.5 

80.0 

81.2 

Darling’s  Blood  Meal  

6309 

7621 

Ross  Feed  Store,  Nobles ville 

8.9 

— 

0.4 

80.0 

85.9 

Major  Bros.  Packing  Company, 

Mishawaka,  Ind. 

Blood  Meal  __  

1971 

5683 

D L Trout  Lee 

38.3 

1.0 

0.5 

55.0 

57.0 

Blood  Meal  

1971 

5979 

Brook  Flour  & Feed  Mill,  Brook 

35^2 

L0 

0.7 

5s!o 

56.7 

Blood  Meal 

1971 

7546 

Manufacturers 

31.7 

1.0 

1-0 

55.0 

54.3 

MEAT  SCRAPS  AND  MEAT  MEAL 

American  Agricultural  Chemical 

Company,  The,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

Pure  Ground  Meat  Scraps 

8105 

6475 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis. 

6.6 

10.0 

11.1 

55.0 

67.6 

Pure  Ground  Meat  Scraps 

8105 

8183 

W.  D.  Henderson  & Co., 

Fort  Wayne 

4.3 

10.0 

11.7 

55.0 

67.2 

Armour  Fertilizer  Works,  Chicago,  111. 

Armour’s  Meat  Meal  

6263 

5884 

O.  L.  Cauble,  Pekin 

6.3 

6.0 

7.7 

60.0 

60.5 

Armour’s  Meat  Meal 

6263 

6183 

W .T  T.awsnn,  Chase 

6.3 

6.0 

8.8 

6o!o 

6L9 

Armour’s  Meat  Meal 

6263 

7795 

Cutsinger  & Thompson, 

Shelbyville  

9.0 

6.0 

5.9 

60.0 

61.5 

Chicago  Feed  & Fertilizer  Company, 

Magic  Brand  Meat  Scraps  62 

6284 

6288  1 

E.  K.  Sowash,  Middletown 

9.0 

6.0 

11.8 

55.0 

49  5 

ttMagic  Brand  Meat  Scraps  03 

6284 

6361 

Scientific  Milling  Co.,  Marion 

7.2 

6.0 

15.5 

55.0 

47.9 

Magic  Brand  Meat  Scraps  04 - 

6284 

7284 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Lafayette  ... 

7.0 

6.0 

13.7  1 

55.0 

51.9 

ft  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished 

00  Molasses  identified 

01  1 ton  removed  from  sale 


02  1125  lbs.  removed  from  sale 

63  300  lbs.  removed  from  sale 

64  1 ton  removed  from  sale.  Relabeled  No.  8621 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

73 

'3 

SE 

o 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

TJ 

n 

2 

£ 

Guar- 

anteed 

C 

1 

Darling  & Company,  Chicago,  111. 

4503 

5757 

M.  A.  Conroy,  Jeffersonville 

6.5 

5.0 

9.5 

55.0 

60.7 

4503 

C.  .T.  Loyd,  Greensburg 

7.8 

5.0 

8.8 

55.0 

58.1 

4503 

7383 

Swayzee’s  Market,  Marion 

7.9 

5.0 

7.1 

55.0 

49.1 

Darling’s  Meat  Scraps  85  _ _ _ 

4503 

7417 

Purdue  Poultry  Farm, 

W.  Lafayette 

7.9 

5.0 

7.3 

55.0 

47.6 

Darling’s  Meat  Scraps  88  __  

4503 

7537 

Wesley  Miller  Flour  & Feed 

Co.,  South  Bend 

7.4 

5.0 

8.3 

55.0 

53  3 

Darling’s  Meat  Scraps  67 

4503 

7816 

Edw.  F.  Goeke  Co.,  Evansville.. 

6.4 

5.0 

9.6 

55.0 

56.2 

Darling’s  Meat  Scraps  68 

4503 

7850 

W.  H.  Robbins  Wholesale 

Grocery  Co.,  Greensburg 

7.5 

5.0 

8.9 

55.0 

60.0 

Darling’s  Meat  Scraps  89 

4503 

8079 

H.  E.  Pitman,  Bedford 

6.8 

5.0 

8.0 

55.0 

55.1 

4503 

8161 

Zelt  Bros.,  Fort.  Wayne 

7.8 

5.0 

7.9 

55.0 

64.7 

4503 

8240 

Shaw  & Maxwell,  Butler  

5.8 

5.0 

9.7 

55.0 

54.1 

Darling’s  Meat,  Scraps  172 

4503 

8256 

Frank  Strock,  Hudson  __  

6.8 

5.0 

9.1 

55.0 

57.5 

4503 

8337 

G.  Wolff  & Sons,  Hamilton..  __ 

7.5 

5.0 

8.1 

55.0 

53.1 

Darling’s  Meat  Scraps  74 

4508 

8263 

T.  I.  Ferris,  Pleasant  Lake 

7.6 

5.0 

8.2 

55.0 

54  8 

tfDarling’s  Meat  Scraps  _ _ 

4503 

8303 

J.  P.  Strock,  Wolcottville..  ._ 

7.4 

5.0 

9.7 

55.0 

60.4 

Darling’s  Standard  Meat  Scrap  75 

5072 

7653 

Purdue  University, 

West  Lafayette 

8.7 

0.5 

6.6 

4i5.0 

35.5 

Morris  & Company,  Chicago,  111. 

Big  Brand  Meat  Scraps 

6805 

7484 

B.  I.  Holser  & Co.,  Walkerton.. 

6.3 

7.0 

7.3 

55.0 

56.6 

Big  Brand  Meat  Scraps  

6905 

8329 

New  Albany  Milling  Co., 

New  Albany __  ... 

4.2 

7.0 

8.3 

55.0 

60.7 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

McCoys  Fancy  Beef  Scraps 

5312 

6562' 

A.  E.  Lemasters,  Greenwood 

7.5 

6.0 

10.7 

50.0 

49.8 

McCoys  Dancy  Beef  Scraps 

5312 

7358 

Manufacturer 

7.0 

6.0 

11.9 

50.0 

52.7 

Rauh  & Sons  Animal  Feed  Company,  E., 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Rauh’s  Meat  Scraps  for  Poultry  ___  __ 

7246 

5892 

Pierce  Elevator  Co.,  Union  City 

7.1 



12.8 

50.0 

49.1 

Rauh’s  Meat  Scraps  for  Poultry  . 

72461 

7418 

Indiana  Seed  Co.,  Indianapolis. 

7.2 

11.1 

50.0 

50.9 

Rauh’s  Meat  Scraps  for  Poultry  78 

7246 

7685 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis. 

6.2 

11.7 

50.0 

53.0 

Rauh’s  Meat  Scraps  for  Poultry  77 

7246 

7921 

Omer  G.  Whelan,  Richmond 

6.3 

11.9 

50.0 

52.2 

Rauh’s  Meat  Scraps  for  Poultry  78 

7246 

8023 

Indiana  Seed  Co.,  Indianapolis.. 

5.7 



8 0 

50.0 

47.7 

Rauh’s  Meat  Scraps  for  Poultry  79 

7246 

■8372 

Omer  G.  Whelan,  Richmond...  . 

6.5 

___ 

10  3 

50.0 

56.6 

'Swift  & Company,  Chicago,  111. 

Swift’s  Meat  Meal 

5687 

8374 

C.  A.  Mendenhall,  Economy 

3.9 

6.0 

6.4 

46.0 

57.5 

Swift’s  Meat  Scraps  _ 

6953 

6592 

O.  E.  Bash  & Co.,  Huntington. 

5.7 

8.0 

10.3 

50.0 

56.7 

Swift’s  Meat  Scraps 

6953 

8154 

C.  F1.  Cattrnn,  Westville 

5.4 

8.0 

9.2 

50.0 

56.5 

Swift’s  Meat  Scraps  _ 

6953 

8157 

Reed  Bros.  Coal  & Feed  Co., 

Ft.  Wayne  __  

5.7 

8.0 

10.0 

50.0' 

53.0 

Swift’s  Meat  Scraps 

6058 

8158 

Kraus  & Apfelbaum,  Ft.  Wayne 

5.2 

8.0 

11.0 

50.0 

54.3 

Wuichet  Fertilizer  Company,  The, 

Dayton,  Ohio 

Ground  Beef  Scrap 

3958 

7708 

Geo.  Niemeyer  & Sons,  Dillsboro 

9.3 

10.0 

10.1 

50.0 

71.3 

MEAT  AND  BONE  MEAL 

Clinton  Manufacturing  Company, 

Frankfort,  Ind. 

C.  M.  C.  Meat  and  Bone  Meal  80 

5547 

7769 

Manufacturers  

7.8 

12.0 

17.5 

45.0 

45.1 

ft  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished 

64a  800  lbs.  removed  from  sale.  Returned  to  mfr. 
65  Federal  sample  taken  and  found  deficient  in 
protein.  Contains  glass  and  seizure  of 
goods  was  made 

68  900  lbs.  removed  from  sale.  Relabeled  with 
No.  5072.  Refund.  See  page  20 

87  Appreciable  amount  of  sand  present 

88  Contains  stomach  offal  and  appreciable 


73  100  lbs.  removed  from  sale.  Salt,  stomach  offal 

and  large  quantity  of  sand  present.  Re- 
turned to  Edon,  Ohio 

74  2 tons  removed  from  sale.  Sand  and  stomach 

offal  present 

- 75  Conflicting  guarantees 
78  Contains  appreciable  amount  of  glass  and 
approx.  2%  sand 

77  309  lbs.  removed  from  sale.  Stomaeh  offal 


amount  of  sand 

69  2 °/2o  tons  removed  from  sale.  Stomach  offal 

and  appreciable  amount  of  sand  present. 
Relabeled  No.  9057 

70  Small  amount  of  glass  and  appreciable 

amount  of  sand  present 

71  1 8/ 20  tons  removed  from  sale.  Stomach  offal 

and  large  quantity  of  sand  present 

72  Stomach  offal  and  appreciable  amounts  of 

sand  and  glass  present 


and  large  quantity  of  sand  present.  Re- 
turned to  mfr. 

78  6 l7/2o  tons  removed  from  sale.  Appreciable 
amount  of  sand  and  excess  bone  present. 
Returned  to  mfrs. 

70  3 x/z  tons  removed  from  sale.  Appreciable 
amount  of  sand  present.  Returned  to  mfr. 

80  Stomach  offal  prespnt 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 

protein 

percent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

ttFancy  Meat  & Bone 

8463 

6080 

Manufacturers  

5.1 

8.0 

7.8 

42.0 

46.8 

Rauh  & Sons  Animal  Feed  Company,  E., 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

6076 

5343 

Mack  Beuoy,  Gaston  

5.5 

12.1 

80.0 

78  3 

♦Meat  Meal 

5997 

Wm  F.  Pmesner,  Knox 

6.9 

11.0 

79.0 

8087 

5737 

Suckow  Co.,  Franklin  

6.8 

5.6 

50.0 

50.9 

Meatone 82  __  _ __  _ 

8087 

6060 

Hardin  Grain  Co.,  Fortville___ 

8.4 

9.7 

50.0 

50.0 

8087 

6115 

Suckow  Co.,  Franklin  __  

8.2 

8.2 

50.0 

51.4 

8087 

6175 

Suckow  Co.,  F'ranklin 

8.0 

6.0 

50.0 

53.3 

Meatone 82  _ __  - 

8087 

6237 

Omer  G.  Whelan,  Richmond 

9.3 

8.4 

50.0 

51.6 

Meatone 82  

8087 

6340 

Goodrich  Bros.  Hay  & Grain 

Co.,  Gaston  — 

9.1 



7.4 

50.0 

54.7 

Meatone  

8087 

7014 

Goodrich  Bros.  Hay  & Grain 

Co.,  Winchester  

7.2 



5.2 

50.0 

50.6 

Meatone 82  _ 

8087 

7333 

Sheridan  Milling  Co.,  Sheridan. _ 

10.9 



4.8 

50.0 

52.4 

Meatone 83  __  

8087 

7345 

Indiana  Seed  Co.,  Indianapolis. 

8.3 



5.9 

50.0 

48  5 

8087 

7410 

L.  S.  Ulrich,  Sharpsville 

9.4 

7.0 

50.0 

49.9 

Meatone  84 ... 

8087 

7619 

Lacy  Feed  Store,  Nobles  ville_— 

8.7 

III 

5.0 

50.0 

50.9 

Meatone 84  

8087 

7642 

Indiana  Seed  Co.,  Indianapolis. 

9.4 



5.1 

50.0 

51.8 

Meatone 85  _ _ 

8087 

7784 

Farmers  Elevator  Co., 

J amestown  

8.9 



5.7 

50.0 

50.9 

Meatone  86  _ 

8087 

8024 

Indiana  Seed  Co.,  Indianapolis. 

9.3 



5.2 

50.0 

50.7 

Meatone  37 

8087 

8345 

Suckow  Co.,  Franklin 

8.0 

6.5 

50.0 

51.6 

Meatone 82  _ 

8087 

8381 

O.  G.  Whelan,  Richmond 

9.8 

8.8 

50.0 

53.1 

TANKAGE 

Anderson  Fertilizer  Company, 

Anderson,  Ind. 

Phillips  Feeding  Tankage 

8387 

5987 

Manufacturers 

12.9 

8.0 

18.2 

36.0 

49.5 

Angola  Reduction  Company, 

Angola,  Ind. 

Tankage  8? 

5358 

8252 

Manufacturers 

3.5 

8.0 

12.2 

40.0 

53  3 

Ballard  Packing  Company,  Marion,  Ind. 

Feeding  Tankage  

5682 

6357 

Manufacturers 

6.6 

8.0 

11.1 

36.0 

38.2 

Feeding  Tankage  8?  __ 

5682 

7447 

Manufacturers 

10.2 

8.0 

9.2 

36.0 

37.7 

Bradley,  John  F.,  Zionsville,  Ind. 

*Tankage  

8344 

Zionsville  Tankage  Plant, 

Zionsville  ..  

63.8 

8.3 

22.5 

Brook  Flour  & Feed  Mill.  Brook,  Ind. 

Rising  Sun  Brand  Digester  Tankage  88 

8221 

5608 

Manufacturers  _ 

13.6 

5.0 

5.7 

60.0 

34.8 

Butler  & Company,  Edw.  J., 

Chicago,  111. 

Butler’s  Premium  Digester  Tankage  89 

7990 

7179 

Worthington  Grain  Co., 

Worthington  

8.8 

6.0 

5.1 

60.0 

61.7 

Butler’s  Premium  Digester  Tankage  90 

7990 

7210 

D.  A.  Rumple,  Berne  

8.7 

6.0 

4.8 

60.0 

60.5 

Butler’s  Premium  Digester  Tankage  89 

7990 

7468 

Cooperative  Elevator  Co., 

Winamac  _ 

8.6 

6.0 

8.9 

60.0 

58.4 

Chicago  Feed  & Fertilizer  Company, 

Chicago,  111. 

Magic  Brand  Tankage  91  __  

6368 

5568 

Judson  Creamery  & Produce 

Co.,  N.  Judson 

8.1 

5.0 

7.3 

60.0 

57  5 

Magic  Brand  Tankage  __  

6388 

5674 

Goshen  Milling  Co.,  Goshen...  . 

7.8 

5.0 

5.0 

60.0 

61.2 

* Not  tagged 

ft  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished 

81  Refund.  See  page  20 

82  Stomach  offal  present 

83  Appreciable  amount  of  glass  and  stomach 

offal  present.  17  tons  replaced  with  new 
stock 

84  Stomach  offal  and  glass  present 

85  40  tons  removed  from  sale.  Stomach  offal, 

approx.  5%  sand  and  glass  present.  Ship- 
ment replaced 


86  Stomach  offal  and  appreciable  amount  of  sand 

and  glass  present 

87  Stomach  offal  and  appreciable  amount  of  sand 

present 

88  2 tons  withdrawn.  Refund.  See  page  20 

89  Stomach  offal  present 

00  Stomach  offal  and  considerable  fine  ground 
glass  and  sand  present 

91  3y2  tons  withdrawn.  Relabeled  No.  7974. 
Refund.  See  page  20.  Stomach  offal 
present 


8o 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

1 Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found | 

Chicago  Feed  & Fertilizer  Company, 

Chicago,  111. 

Magic  Brand  Tankage  92  __  _ 

6368 

5080 

Brook  Flour  & Feed  Mill, 

Brook 

8.7 

5.0 

7.7 

60.0 

56.6 

Magic  Brand  Tankage  93  

6368 

6081 

D.  L.  Trout,  Lee 

9.9 

5.0 

5.8 

00.0 

58  8 

Magic  Brand  Tankage  

6368 

6117 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Crawfordsville 

9.0 

5.0 

5.4 

60.0 

60.6 

Magic  Brand  Tankage  _ 

6368 

6118 

Myers  Bros.,  Linnsburg 

7.9 

5.0 

5.4 

60.0 

61.1 

Magic  Brand  Tankage  92 __ 

6368 

6182 

W.  J.  Lawson,  Chase 

10.3 

5.0 

3.9 

60.0 

63.8 

Magic  Brand  Tankage  92 

6368 

6421 

Harting  & Co.,  Elwood 

10.0 

5.0 

3 6 

60.0 

58  9 

Magic  Brand  Tankage  94 

6368 

7201 

H.  F.  Rakestraw,  Oakfnrrl 

8.6 

5.0 

2.9 

60.0 

58  5 

Magic  Brand  Tankage  95 

6368 

7281 

R.  E.  Findling,  Arcadia  _ 

8.6 

5.0 

2.4 

60.0 

61.3 

Magic  Brand  Tankage  9(5  _ _ __ 

6368 

7308 

Hurst  & Co.,  Indianapolis 

7.9 

5.0 

2.4 

60.0 

61.2 

Magic  Brand  Tankage  97 

6368 

7320 

Loughry  Bros.  Milling  & Grain 

Co.,  Monticello  . 

10.1 

5.0 

4 8 

60.0 

60.1 

6308 

7348 

R.  P.  Alice,  Coatsville 

9.2 

5.0 

2.3 

60.0 

60.8 

6368 

7340 

.T.  A.  Jenkins,  Danville 

8.7 

5.0 

2.4 

60.0 

61.0 

Magic  Brand  Tankage  9S 

6308 

7350 

Frank  R.  Robbins,  Greensburg.. 

8.8 

5.0 

2.4 

60.0 

60.2 

Magic  Brand  Tankage  99 

6368 

7441 

Harting  & Co.,  Elwood  _ 

7.7 

5.0 

4.1 

60.0 

59.9 

Magic  'Rranri  Tankage 

6368 

7507 

C.  M.  Barlow,  Knknmn 

8.8 

5.0 

3 6 

60.0 

61.4 

Magic  Brand  Tankage  100 

6368 

8142 

Farmers  Elevator,  Kempton 

8.6 

5.0 

4.2 

60.0 

58.9 

Magic  Brand  Tankage 101  

6368 

8143 

L.  O.  Teter,  Tipton 

8.6 

5.0 

4.1 

60.0 

58.9 

Magic  Brand  Tankage  102  . 

6368 

8333 

Morrison  & Teegarden, 

Saratoga  

6.5 

5.0 

4.2 

60.0 

57.7 

*Magic  Brand  Digester  Tankage  92 

7252 

Chicago  Feed  & Fertilizer  Co., 

Osborne 

8.3 



4.2 



61.0 

Cincinnati  Animal  Food  Company, 

Cincinnati,  Ohio. 

“Porkopolis”  Brand  Digester  Tankage 

0728 

5483 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Crawfordsville  

8.8 

8.0 

8.4 

60.0 

59.2 

“Porkopolis”  Brand  Digester  Tankage 

6728 

5523 

James  H.  Harper,  Sharpsville_. 

7.4 

8.0 

7.5 

60.0 

61.4 

Cleveland  Provision  Company,  The, 

Cleveland,  Ohio 

Premium  Digester  Tankage  103  

5712 

8135 

Middlebury  Grain  Co., 

Middlebury  

9.3 

7.0 

7.2 

60.0 

60.8 

Clendenin  & Company,  Richmond,  Ind. 

Feeding  Tankage  104  

2132 

6253 

Lewisville  Elevator  Co., 

Lewisville  _ 

7.3 

13.0 

17.6 

45.0 

39  0 

Columbus  Sanitary  Reduction  Company, 

Columbus,  Ind. 

Feeding  Tankage 

8182 

5460 

Manufacturers 

4.9 

15.0 

18.9 

45.0 

42.8 

Connelly,  Clare,  Judson,  Ind. 

Tankage  __  __  _ - 

6364 

7630 

Manufacturer 

12.6 

6.0 

16.5 

38.0 

59.4 

Darling  & Company,  Chicago,  111. 

Darling’s  Hog  Cents  Digester  Tankage 

4733 

6034 

Maumee  Valley  Mills, 

Darling’s  Hog  Cents  Digester  Tank- 

New Haven  _ 

14.6 

0.5 

1.9 

40.0 

43.2 

age  105 

4733 

7217 

Geo.  M.  Jordan,  Vincennes  __  _ 

8.4 

0.5 

1.1 

40.0 

41.8 

Darling’s  60%  Digester  Tankage  106 — 

4734 

5724 

W.  E.  Hayes,  Kokomo __ 

8.9 

0.5 

5.6 

60.0 

60.0 

Darling’s  60%  Digester  Tankage  106  — 

4734 

6147 

Krause  & Apfelbaum, 

Ft.  Wayne  — _ 

12.0 

0.5 

1.1 

60.0 

59.2 

Darling’s  60%  Digester  Tankage  107 

4734 

6854 

H.  C.  Arnold  & Son,  Bluffton__ 

10.7 

0.5 

2.0 

60.0 

58  0 

* Not  tagged 

92  Stomach  offal  present 
03  Refund.  See  page  20 

94  300  lbs.  removed  from  sale.  Stomach  offal 

and  considerable  pulverized  glass  present 

95  2*4  tons  returned  to  distributor  and  replaced 

with  other  goods.  Stomach  offal  and  ap- 
preciable amount  of  glass  present 

96  1500  lbs.  removed  from  sale.  Stomach  offal 

and  appreciable  amount  of  glass  present 

97  1500  lbs.  removed  from  sale.  Stomach  offal 

present 

98  Stomach  offal  and  appreciable  amount  fine 

glass  present 


99  6%  tons  removed  from  sale.  Returned  to 

mfgs.  Stomach  offal,  appreciable  amount  of 
glass  present 

100  Same  shipment  as  D8143 

101  Appreciable  amount  of  sand,  small  amount  of 

glass  present.  Refund.  See  page  20 

102  2Vs  tons  removed  from  sale.  Returned  to 

mfrs.  Stomach  offal  and  approx.  3 % glass 
present 

103  Stomach  offal,  small  amount  glass  present 
101  300  lbs.  returned  to  mfrs.  Refund.  See  page  20 
105  Stomach  offal,  appreciable  amount  glass  and 

sand  present 
100  Stomach  offal  present 

107  1900  lbs.  removed  from  sale.  Stomach  offal 
present.  Returned  to  mfrs. 


8i 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

| an  teed 

Found 

Bailing  & Company,  Chicago,  111. 

1 

Darling’s  60%  Digester  Tankage  108___ 

4734 

7123 

Kraus  & Apfelbaum, 

Ft.  Wayne _ __  __  

10.4 

0.5 

3.1 

60.0 

59.9 

Darling’s  60%  Digester  Tankage  109_._ 

4734 

7393 

G.  W.  Wolff  & Sons,  Hamilton 

9.7 

0.5 

5.0 

60.0 

62.4 

Darling’s  00%  Digester  Tankage  110  — 

4734 

7431 

Berne  Grain  & Hay  Co.,  Berne 

9.8 

0.5 

0.6 

60.0 

63.5 

x Darling’s  00%  Digester  Tankage  111__. 

4734 

7584 

S.  D.  Bailey  Co.,  Wanatah 

11.4 

0.5 

1.5 

60.0 

60.5 

Darling’s  60%  Digester  Tankage  112___ 

4734 

7711 

Kraus  & Apfelbaum,  Ft.  Wayne 

9.9 

0.5 

0.7 

60.0 

61.1 

Darling’s  60%  Digester  Tankage  113 

4734 

7766 

Harry  Pinney,  Wanatah 

11.2 

0.5 

0.5 

60.0 

61.2 

Darling’s  60%  DigesteT  Tankage114--- 

4734 

7925 

Studebaker  Grain  & Seed  Co., 

Van  Buren  __  _ - - 

9.1 

0.5 

1.1 

60.0 

58.1 

Darling’s  60%  Digester  Tankage  115  — 

4734 

7927 

Studebaker  Grain  & Seed  Co., 

Bluffton  _ 

8.3 

0.5 

5.2 

00.0 

60.7 

Darling’s  60%  Digester  Tankage  116___ 

4734 

8070 

S.  F.  Trembley  Co., 

Columbia  City  _ 

10.4 

0.5 

1.6 

60.0 

62.4 

Darling’s  60%  Digester  Tankage117 

4734 

8080 

H.  E.  Pitman,  Bedford 

9.8 

0.5 

4.9 

60.0 

62.9 

Darling’s  60%  Digester  Tankage  118_-J 

4734 

8137 

Middlebury  Grain  Co., 

Middlebury  _ __ _ 

8.7 

0.5 

1.3 

60.0 

59  3 

Darling’s  60%  Digester  Tankage'119 

4734 

8239 

Shaw  & Maxwell,  Butler 

12.0 

0.5 

1.5 

60.0 

58.9 

Darling’s  60%  Digester  Tankage  118 ! 

4734 

8255 

Frank  Strock,  Hudson.  __ 

8.7 

0.5 

5.2 

60.0 

63.7 

Darling’s  00%  Digester  Tankage120--- 

4734 

8392 

J.  P.  Strock,  Wolcottville 

11.2 

0.5 

0.7 

60.0 

62.7 

Darling’s  60%  Digester  Tankage  118 

4734 

8870 

T.  I.  Ferris,  Pleasant  Lake 

9.1 

0.5 

4.9 

60.0 

62.5 

Daudistel,  Henry,  Evansville,  Ind. 

Feeding  Tankage  121 

8599 

7808 

Geo.  W.  Brown,  Evansville 

6.7 

8.0 

9.6 

40.0 

33.8 

Feeding  Tankage 122  

8599 

7807 

Edward  F.  Goeke  Co.,  Evansville 

7.5 

8.0 

9.7 

40.0 

34.4 

Feeding  Tankage  723 

8599 

8160 

John  Wilkinson,  Boonville  _ 

7.3 

8.0 

9.0 

40.0 

35  4 

Feeding  Tankage*122  _ 

8599 

8167 

.T.  H.  Burkhart,  Boonville 

7.4 

8.0 

9.6 

40.0 

34  2 

Decatur  Fertilizer  Company, 

. 

Decatur,  Ind. 

Tankage 

7438 

7114 

Manufacturers  _ 

8.0 

7.0 

9.9 

35.0 

55.6 

DeKalb  Tanking  Company, 

Auburn  Junction,  Ind. 

fFeeding  Tankage  

8938 

8233 

Manufacturers 

38.9 

8.0 

9.4 

25.0 

34.3 

Delphi  Fertilizer  Company,  The, 

Delphi,  Ind. 

Feeding  Tankage  __ 

8052 

6950 

Manufacturers 

4.3 

12.0 

18.1 

35.0 

38.4 

Eckart  Packing  Company,  Fred, 

Ft.  Wayne,  Ind. 

Eckart’s  Feeding  Tankage 

6055 

5530 

Manufacturers 

14  6 

9.0 

15.4 

28.0 

37.3 

Eckart’s  Feeding  Tankage  124 

6055 

7099 

Berne  Milling  Co.,  Berne 

5.2 

9.0 

12.0 

28.0 

38.1 

Eckart’s  Feeding  Tankage  - 

6055 

8188 

Manufacturers  ..  

16.2 

9.0 

11.1 

28.0 

31.1 

Elkhart  Fertilizer  Company, 

Elkhart,  Ind. 

Feeding  Tankage 

6504 

8307 

Elkhart  County  Fertilizer  Co., 

Wakarusa  ___  __ 

4.6 

8.0 

20.1 

44.0 

62.9 

t Before  registration 

108  15  tons  removed  from  sale.  Stomach  offal 
present 

100  3 tons  removed  from  sale.  Appreciable  amount 
of  glass  and  sand  present.  Returned  to 
mfrs. 

110  1 3/ 20  tons  removed  from  sale.  Stomach  offal, 

glass  and  sand  present.  Returned  to  mfrs. 
Refund.  See  page  20 

111  1400  lbs.  returned  to  mfrs.  Stomach  offal, 

appreciable  amount  of  glass,  approx. 
1.4%  sand  present 

112  3 2/20  tons  removed  from  sale.  Returned  to 

mfrs.  Stomach  offal,  appreciable  amount 
of  sand  and  glass  present 

113  1%  tons  removed  from  sale.  Stomach  offal, 

glass  present 

114  11/ o0  ton  removed  from  sale.  Returned  to  mfr. 

115  5 6/ 20  tons  removed  from  sale.  Stomach  offal, 

large  amount  of  sand  present.  Returned  to 
mfr. 


116  Stomach  offal,  appreciable  amount  of  glass 

present 

117  1%  tons  removed  from  sale.  Appreciable 

quantity  of  sand  present.  Relabeled  No. 
9068 

118  Appreciable  amount  of  sand,  stomach  offal 

present 

110  Stomach  offal,  large  amount  of  sand,  appre- 
ciable amount  of  glass  present 

120  1600  lbs.  returned  to  mfrs.  Stomach  offal, 

appreciable  quantity  of  glass  and  sand 
present 

121  Stomach  offal,  appreciable  amount  sand  pres- 

ent. 1600  lbs.  returned 

122  Stomach  offal,  appreciable  amount  sand  present 

123  Stomach  offal,  appreciable  amount  sand  pres- 

ent. Relabeled  No.  9082.  Refund.  See 
page  20 

124  Stomach  offal  present 


82 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Evansville  Packing  Company, 

Evansville,  Ind. 

7403 

5629 

Hanry  'Dugan,  Owp.nsville 

8.2 

15.0 

10.4 

60.0 

60.2 

7403 

5634 

Henry  Schnur,  Mt.  Vernon 

6.3 

15.0 

8.7 

60.0 

56.2 

7403 

5675 

Manufacturers  _ 

6.7 

15.0 

9.5 

60.0 

60.5 

60%  Stock  Feeding  Tankage 

7403 

5813 

American  Cooperative  Assoc., 

Boonville  _ 

7.8 

15.0 

9.2 

60.0 

63.3 

60%  “Feeding  Tankage”  124 

8298 

7821 

W.  H.  Small  & Co.,  Evansville. 

7.1 

8.0 

5.7 

60.0 

61.6 

Farmers  Tanking  & Fertilizer  Company, 

Muncie,  Ind. 

7860 

5916 

Manufacturers 

12.3 

10.0 

12.8 

45.0 

50.0 

White  River  Feeding  Tankage  125 

7860 

6312 

Manufacturers  

12.9 

10.0 

13.1 

45.0 

59.6 

Goldreich  Fertilizer  Company, 

Marion,  Ind. 

4352 

Manufacturers 

9.1 

11.0 

16.1 

45.0 

44.8 

7438 

Manufacturers  _ 

6.0 

11.0 

14.7 

45.0 

40  0 

4352 

7926 

Manufacturers  _ 

10.3 

11.0 

11.6 

45.0 

42.8 

Hancock  Fertilizer  Company,  The, 

Greenfield,  Ind. 

Feeding*  T&nkage 

7659 

7425 

Manufacturers  __ 

6.4 

6.0 

17.7 

40.0 

41.4 

Holzapfel,  Henry,  Richmond,  Ind. 

Feeding  Tankage  125  

3551 

6235 

J.  F.  Maher  Cold  Storage, 

Richmond  

3.3 



18.9 

28.0 

25.4 

Home  Packing  & Ice  Company, 

Terre  Haute,  Ind. 

Digester  Meat  & Bone  Tankage  __ 

7450 

5688 

Overpeck  & Branson,  Rockville. 

10.9 

10.0 

13.9 

32.0 

34.0 

Digester  Meat  & Bone  Tankage  125 

7450 

5699 

Manufacturers  

7.8 

10.0 

12.7 

32.0 

35.5 

Digester  Meat  & Bone  Tankage 125 

7450 

5705 

Sam  Milligan,  Jr.,  Waveland— 

10.2 

10.0 

12.0 

32.0 

36.9 

TMg'ester  IVTeftitr  & T^ne  Tanlragp 

7450 

6658 

Manufacturers  _ _ 

12.1 

10.0 

11.7 

32.0 

38.5 

Digester  Meat  & Bone  Tankage  128 

7450 

6927 

Schultz  Bros.,  Elberfeld 

5.3 

10.0 

9.7 

32.0 

37.0 

Huntington  Fertilizer  Company, 

Huntington,  Ind. 

Farmers  Commercial  Feeding  Tankage 

6247 

6597 

Manufacturers  ._  

3.9 

15.0 

19.1 

50.0 

39.6 

Farmers  Commercial  Feeding  Tank- 

age 129  

6247 

7590 

Weber  & Purviance, 

Huntington  

4.8 

15.0 

16.5 

50.0 

40.8 

Independent  Feed  & Fertilizer  Company, 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Digester  Tankage,  Clover  Leaf  130 

8503 

7202 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Lafayette  

7.1 

6.0 

9.3 

60.0 

31.7 

Digester  Tankage,  Clover  Leaf  131_  — 

8503 

7245 

Prater-Mottier  Co.,  Terre  Haute 

5.2 

6.0 

9.6 

60.0 

38.8 

Digester  Tankage,  Clover  Leaf  132 

8503 

7253 

Uhl- Snider  Milling  Co., 

Connersville  _.  _ 

6.6 

6.0 

9 0 

60.0 

36  8 

Higesfer  T'anlrage  Olrwer  Leaf  133 

8503 

7254 

Shirley  Rr,  .Tones,  Lebanon 

5.8 

6.0 

9.3 

60.0 

39.1 

Digester  Tankage,  Clover  Leaf  134 

8503 

7255 

Uhl-Snider  Milling  Co., 

Connersville  ...  — 

5.4 

6.0 

10.4 

60.0 

39  6 

Higesfer  Tanlragp  Olnvpr  Lpa.f  125 

8503 

7256 

Manufacturer  _ 

5.6 

6.0 

9.8 

60.0 

37.6 

Digester  Tankage,  Clover  Leaf 

8503 

7424 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Lafayette 

7.7 

6.0 

45 

60.0 

60.1 

"Digester  Tfl nlrajp  mover  Leaf  136 

8503 

7442 

Hart.ing  # ; L!o  , "Rlwnnd 

5.5 

6.0 

8.1 

60.0 

37.4 

Digester  Tankage  CUnyer  Leaf 

8503 

7519 

Lou  Puckett,  Shidler  

7.6 

6.0 

4.7 

60.0 

61.1 

Digester  Tankage,  Clover  Leaf 

8503 

7796 

Morrison  & DePrez  Drug  Co., 

Shelbyville ...  ...  _ - 

7.2 

6.0 

3.7 

60.0 

60.7 

Digester  Tankage,  Clover  Leaf 

8503 

7859 

E.  E.  Whicker,  Sandusky  

6.8 

6.0 

3 8 

eo.o 

61.0 

Digester  Tankage,  Clover  Leaf  137 

8503 

7864 

Richards  & Lawson,  Shelbyville 

6.1 

6.0 

8.6 

60.0 

37  8 

Digester  Tankage,  Clover  Leaf 

8503 

8287 

Scottsburg  Elevator,  Scottsburg 

7.1 

6.0 

3 5 

60.0 

63  3 

125  Stomach  offal  present 
120  1 ton  -removed  from  sale 

727  5 tons  removed  from  sale.  Stomach  offal  present 
i28  688  lbs.  returned  to  mfrs.  Stomach  offal  present 
120  *4  ton  removed  from  sale.  Stomach  offal  present 

130  25  tons  removed  from  sale  and  shipped  to 

Jacksonville,  111.  Stomach  offal  present. 

131  5 tons  removed  from  sale  and  returned  to 

mfrs.  Stomach  offal  present 
132  Not  offered  for  sale 


133  i is/20  tons  removed  from  sale.  Stomach  offal 

present 

134  t i7/20  tons  removed  from  sale.  Stomach  offal 

present 

135  2V-z  tons  removed  from  sale.  Stomach  offal 

present 

138  j o/20  tons  returned  to  mfrs.  Stomach  offal 
present 

137  300  lbs.  removed  from  sale.  Stomach  offal, 
appreciable  amount  sand  present 


83 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Number 


Label 


Sample  secured  from 


Inter-State  Rendering  Company, 
Kentland,  Ind. 

♦Tankage  .. 


7778 


Manufacturers  8.2 


Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

T3 

1 T3 
u 8 

T) 

3 

3 

g 

Ss 

£ 

0 tf 

12.5 


48.2 


Joslin-Schmidt  Company, 

Cincinnati,  Ohio 

“Abattoir  Brand”  Digester  Tankage— 
“Abattoir  Brand”  Digester  Tankage138 
“Abattoir  Brand”  Digester  Tankage139 
“Abattoir  Brand”  Digester  Tankage— 

“Abattoir  Brand”  Digester  Tankage— 

“Abattoir  Brand”  Digester  Tankage139 
“Abattoir  Brand”  Digester  Tankage139 

Abattoir  Brand — Digester  Tankage 

Abattoir  Brand— Digester  Tankage139. 

Abattoir  Brand— Digester  Tankage140. 
Abattoir  Brand— Digester  Tankage140. 
Abattoir  Brand — Digester  Tankage 

Abattoir  Brand — Digester  Tankage 

Abattoir  Brand — Digester  Tankage 

Abattoir  Brand — Digester  Tankage 


6376 

6376 

6376 

6376 

6376 

6376 

6370 

8615 

■8615 

8615 

8615 

8615 

8615 

8615 

8615 


5394 

6045 

6133 

6185 

6320 

6860 

7068 

7439 

7574 

7686' 

7687 

7929 

7940 

7941 
7967 


Osgood  Grain  Co.,  Osgood ! 

Hartman  & Dotterer,  Bluffton 

John  P.  Frazee,  Rushville | 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co. 

Lafayette  

Union  Grain  & Seed  Co., 

Anderson  

Hartman  & Dotterer,  Bluffton. 

Osgood  Grain  Co.,  Osgood ! 

Hartman  & Dotterer,  Bluffton 
Union  Grain  & Feed  Co., 

Anderson  1 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis] 
McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis 
New  Castle  Elevator  Co., 

New  Castle  

C.  W.  Caldwell,  Bentonville I 

E.  C.  Caldwell,  Connersville ! 

Warren  Elevator  Co.,  Warren.. 


7.5 

13.7 

9.2 


7.1 
8.3 

9.2 

10.3 

8.6 

8.5 

10.6 

10.6 

10.6 

12.6 

10.4 


8.0  8.6  60.0  59.4 

8.0  8.2  60.0  58.9 

8.0  8.3  60.0  61.1 

8.0  9.2  60.0  61.4 


8.0  7.7  60.0 

8.0  8.2  60.0 

8.0  5.7  60.0 

1.0  7.2  60.0 


62.0 

53.2 

60.1 

60.8 


1.0  5.7  60.0 

1.0  8.2  60.0 

1.0  6.6  60.0 


60.8 

59.0 

60.5 


1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 


7.5  60.0 
4.8  60.0 
5.2  60.0 
7.1  00.0 


60.1 

60.9 

61.9 

59.7 


Kalberer,  Wm.,  Lafayette,  Ind. 
The  Tippecanoe  Hog  Grower  _. 

Kendallville  Fertilizer  Company, 
Kendallville,  Ind. 

“Feeding  Tankage”  .. 


8050 


6144 


Manufacturer 


Manufacturers 


8.2 


8.9 


10.0 


10.0 


13.0 


9.3 


50.0 


44.0 


50.5 


Kingan  & Company,  Ltd.. 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Kingan’s  Digester  Tankage 

Kingan’s  Digester  Tankage 

Kingan’s  Digester  Tankage 

Kingan’s  Digester  Tankage  141 

Kingan’s  Digester  Tankage  142 

Kingan’s  Digester  Tankage  143 


8574 


8574 

8574 

8574 


6997 

7023 

7086 

7453 


8574 

8574 


7633 

7681 


Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Lafayette  

C.  V.  Graft,  Winchester 

C.  G.  Hunger,  Madison 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Lafayette  

Bloomingdale  Mill  Co., 

Bloomlngdale  

Hardin  Grain  Co.,  Fortville i 


Kuhner  Packing  Company,  Muncie,  Ind. 

Kuhner’s  Tankage  

Kuhner ’s  Tankage144  

Kuhner’s  Tankage  


6406 

6406 

8464 


5917 

6143 

7090 


Manufacturers 

Manufacturers 

Manufacturers 


8.4 

8.0 

10.1 

9.6 

10.7 

8.4 


13.8 

5.3 

4.9 


6.0  11.7 
6.0  12.9 
6.0  11.3 


60.0 

60.0 

60.0 


66.7 

65.4 

66.6 


6.0  8.0  60.0 


54  4 


6.0  8 9 60.0  55.1 
6.0  8.5  60.0  57.2 


9.0 

9.0 

5.0 


6.2  30.0 

9.2  30.0 
5 3 30.0 


34.0 
33  7 
34.9 


Maher  Cold  Storage,  J.  F., 
Richmond,  Ind. 

Feeding  Tankage  144 

Manns’  Fertilizer  Works, 
North  Manchester,  Ind. 
Mann’s  Feeding  Tankage 

Meier  Packing  Company, 
Indianapolis,  Ind. 
Feeding  Tankage 

Feeding  Tankage 


8552 


7916 


Manufacturers 


7032 


7161 


J.  W.  Strauss  & Son, 

North  Manchester 


8075  6009 
8075  8198 


Amo  Mill  & Elevator  Co., 

Bargersville  

Manufacturers  


7.7 

7.1 

6.8 

9.1 


5.0 

15.0 

50 

5.0 


18.5 

16.2 

21.8 

21.3 


28.0 

45.0 

28.0 
28.0 


25.5 

47.6 

31.8 

32.6 


Mitchell  & Mitchell, 

Martinsville,  R.  R.  9,  Ind. 
tFceding  Tankage  146  


8849 


7677 


Manufacturers 


7.0 


16.0 


30.0 


40.8 


* Not  tagged  1^1  17Ms  tons  removed  from  sale.  Relabeled  with 

t Before  registration  No.  8886 

138  Refund.  See  page  20.  Stomach  offal  present  142  114  tons  removed  from  sale 

139  Stomach  offal  present  143700  lbs.  returned  to  mfrs. 

140  Stomach  offal,  approx.  1.6%  sand  present  m Stomach  offal  present 

115  Large  amount  sand  present 


84 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1913 

(continued) 


Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

5766 

7958 

Montpelier  Fertilizer  Co., 

" 

Montpelier 

4.7 

24.0 

15.5 

49.0 

40.5 

4224 

5340 

Nixon  & Van  Deventer,  Attica. 

6.5 

8.0 

10.7 

60.0 

60.5 

4224 

5352 

.Hurst  & Co.,  Indianapolis 

7.9 

8.0 

9.9 

60.0 

623 

4224 

7479 

Hamlet  Grain  Co.,  Hamlet 

7.1 

8.0 

7.2 

60.0 

58  4 

8155 

5694 

W.  C.  Hall  Milling  Co.,  Brazil. 

7.2 

6.0 

7.6 

60.0 

63.0 

8155' 

5861 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Lafayette  

6.2 

6.0 

9.7 

60.0 

60.2 

8155 

6915 

l_I.  B.  Clyne,  Crawfordsville  .. 

8.0 

6.0 

8.1 

60.0 

56.6 

8155 

7318 

Hurst  & Co.,  Indianapolis 

6.2 

6.0 

7.9 

60.0 

60.8 

8155 

7449 

V.  H.  Bulleitt  & Sons.  Corydon 

5.8 

6.0 

8.0 

60.0 

62.6 

8155 

7488 

B.  I.  Holser  & Co.,  Waikerton 

8.3 

6.0 

7.7 

60.0 

60.8 

8155 

7480 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Lafayette  _______  . _ _ 

6.4 

6.0 

9.2 

60.0 

61.1 

8155 

7689 

Hurst  & Co.,  Indianapolis 

5.2 

6.0 

9.3 

60.0 

60.1 

8155 

7712 

I.  B.  Clyne,  Crawfordsville 

7.3 

6.0 

8.3 

60.0 

60.4 

8155 

7802 

Morrison  & DePrez  Drug  Co., 

Shelbyville  

5.9 

6.0 

8.7 

60.0 

61.9 

8155 

8022 

Hurst  & Co.,  Indianapolis 

7.0 

6.0 

9.0 

60.0 

60.5 

8155 

8331 

Y.  T.  Reid,  Salem _ 

6.2 

6.0 

8.5 

60.0 

eo.5 

5223 

5443 

Letts  Grain  & Lumber  Co., 

Letts  Corner 

11.8 



3.3 

60.0 

59.5 

5223 

6079 

Manufacturers  

7.1 



5.8 

eo.o 

60.0 

5223 

6472 

Manufacturers  

8.4 



2.8 

60.0 

60.6 

5223 

6488 

Manufacturers  . _ _ 

7.6 



3.6 

60.0 

58  4 

5223 

6825 

D.  B.  Zimmerman  & Son,  Cicero 

7.8 



3.1 

60.0 

61.1 

5223 

7357 

Manufacturers _ _ __ 

7.8 



4.2 

60.0 

62.9 

5223 

7683 

Manufacturers  — _ _ __  ___ 

8.1 



3.7 

60.0 

59.2 

5223 

7684 

Manufacturers  

8.0 

— 

4.3 

60.0 

60.4 

5223 

7962 

Ossian  Roller  Mills,  Ossian  ._  _ 

8.6 

— 

3.4 

60.0 

59  5 

8238 

5695 

Manufacturers  _ __ 

6.6 

8.0 

13.1 

55.0 

eo.s 

8065 

8356 

Manufacturers  

9.4 

10.0 

19.5 

40.0 

56  9 

8554 

6193 

Manufacturers  

4.1 

8.0 

21.6 

38.0 

39.7 

5015 

5438 

Manufacturers  _ 

8.1 

5.0 

8.7 

37.0 

33  9 

5015 

5760' 

Manufacturers  ___  

13.9 

5.0 

10.6 

37.0 

42.8 

5015 

7105 

Manufacturers  _ __ _ 

7.8 

5.0 

11.5 

37.0 

38.2 

5015 

8153 

Manufacturers  

10.9 

5.0 

8.1 

37.0  1 

41.8 

7308 

5996 

Wm.  F.  Pruesner, 

Freelaridville  _ __ 

10.7 



8.5 

60.0 

58  9 

7308 

6010 

Ajno  Mill  & Elevator  Co., 

Bargersvllle  __  

12.6 

— 

4.9 

60.0 

59.8 

7552 

7015 

Manufacturers  _ 

6.7 

17.0 

24.8 

40.0 

45.4 

3575 

5369  j 

Manufacturers  _ __  — — 

4.1 

4.0 

eo.o 

73  0 

Label 


Montpelier  Fertilizer  Company, 
Huntington,  Ind. 

Farmers  Commercial  Feeding  Tank- 
age 144  


Morris  & Company,  Chicago,  111. 
Big  Brand  60%  Digester  Tankage- 
Big  Brand  60%  Digester  Tankage- 
Big  Brand  60%  Digester  Tankage- 


Big  Sixty  Meat  Meal  Digester  Tank- 
age 146  


McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 
McCoys  Choice  Hog  Digester  Tank- 
age 147  


Choice 

Choice 

Choice 

Choice 

Choice 

Choice 

Choice 


Hog 

Hog 

Hog 

Hog 

Hog 

Hog 

Hog 


Digester 

Digester 

Digester 

Digester 

Digester 

Digester 

Digester 


Tankage 
Tankage 
Tankage 
Tankage 
Tank- 


McCoys 
McCoys 
McCoys 
McCoys 
McCoys 
McCoys 
McCoys 
age  14i 

McCoys  Choice  Hog  Digester  Tankage 

McKenzie  & Company,  J.  H., 

Brazil,  R.  R.  8,  Ind. 

Tankage , 

New  Castle  Tankage  Company, 

New  Castle,  Ind. 
tFeeding  Tankage  


Newton  County  Reduction  Plant, 
Kentland,  Ind. 

fPendergrass  Hog  Tankage 

Pearl  Packing  House,  The, 
Madison,  Ind. 

The  Pearl  Brand  

The  Pearl  Brand  

The  Pearl  Brand  149 

The  Pearl  Brand  


Rauh  & Sons  Animal  Feed  Company,  E., 
Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Rauh’s  Digester  Tankage  for  Hogs  149 

Rauh’s  Digester  Tankage  for  Hogs 

Roby  Bros.,  Winchester,  R.  R.  4,  Ind. 
Roby  Brothers  Feeding  Tankage  144  __ 

Routh  & Company,  W.  C., 

Logansport,  Ind. 

Routh’s  Best  Feeding  Tankage 

f Before  registration 

114  Stomach  offal  present 

140  4 i/10  tons  returned  to  mfrs. 

147  Stomach  offal  present 


148  Stomach  offal,  approx.  1.6%  sand  and 

ciable  amount  glass  present 

149  Stomach  offal  present 


85 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moicture 

percent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Schmadel  Packing  & Ice  Company, 

Evansville,  Ind. 

♦Feeding  Tankage  _ 

8163 

Manufacturers  

12.8 

6.2 

40.4 

Sears,  Roebuck  & Company, 

Chicago,  111. 

♦Blue  Bag  Brand  Digester  Tankage 

— 

590® 

T.  G.  Carsell,  Bloomington.. 

6.6 

— 

7.3 

61.9 

Stadler  Rendering  & Fertilizer  Company, 

The  J.  L.  & H.,  Cleveland,  Ohio 

Feeding  Tankage  _ 

8173 

6018 

Union  Hardware  Co.,  Lebanon. 

11.2 

10.0 

8.5 

40.0 

38  6 

Stolle  & Sons,  Anton,  Richmond,  Ind. 

Stolle’s  Feeding  Tankage  

758*6 

6236 

Manufacturers  _ 

4.2 

6.0 

11.3 

34.0 

34.0 

7915 

Manufacturers  _ 

8.9 

6.0 

10.5 

34.0 

31.6 

Sullivan  Reduction  Company, 

F'armersburg,  Ind. 

8282 

Manufacturers  _ 

11.2 

2.0 

15.5 

35.0 

49.8 

Feeding  Tankage  __  

8282 

7208 

Manufacturers  ...  _ __ 

6.5 

2.0 

20.2 

35.0 

46.0 

Swift  & Company,  Chicago,  111. 

Swift’s  Digester  Tankage  151__ 

7030 

5378 

Vandalia  Elevator  Co.,  Colfax 

7.0 

6.0 

8.0 

60.0 

57  8 

Swift’s  Digester  Tankage  _ 

7030 

5397 

Walton  Elevator  Co.,  Walton. 

7.2 

6.0 

7.6 

60.0 

60.8 

Swift’s  Digester  Tankage  152 

7030 

5510 

Chalmers  Grain  Co.,  Chalmers. 

5.7 

6.0 

7.9 

60.0 

58  4 

Swift’s  Digester  Tankage 

7030 

5539 

C E.  Bash  & Co.,  Huntington 

7.0 

6.0 

6.5 

60.0 

60.5 

Swift’s  Digester  Tankage _ . 

7030 

5588 

Farmers  Union  Elevator  Co., 

Carlisle  __  ...  ._ 

7.6 

6.0 

6.0 

60.0 

61.4 

Swift’s  Digester  Tankage 

7030 

5625 

John  Dunn,  Wolcott __ 

7.3 

6.0 

8.2 

60.0 

60.9 

Swift’s  Digester  Tankage 

7030 

6042' 

Studebaker  Grain  & Seed  Co., 

Bluffton  __  . . 

10.6 

6.0 

5.7 

60.0 

51  0 

Swift’s  Digester  Tankage 

7030 

6160* 

Joseph  Minch,  Chalmers 

6.0 

6.0 

8.5 

60.0 

60.9 

♦Swift’s  Digester  Tankage 

0168 

O.  B.  Valentine,  Clavpool 

7.3 

8.8 

60.8 

Swift’s  Digester  Tankage 

7030 

0296 

O.  F.  Cattrnn,  Westville 

6.3 

6.0 

9.3 

60.0 

60.1 

Swift’s  Digester  Tankage  _ . 

7030 

3342 

Otto  Lef forge,  Rossville 

7.2 

6.0 

7.3 

60.0 

61  6 

Swift’s  Digester  Tankage. 

7030 

6742 

McCoy  Bros.,  Liberty  __ 

6.3 

6.0 

10.3 

60.0 

59  5 

Swift’s  Digester  Tankage  __  

7030 

7148 

O.  Gandy  & Co.,  South  Whitley 

9.3 

6.0 

5.9 

60.0 

61.2 

Swift’s  Digester  Tankage 

7030 

7280 

R.  E.  Findley,  Arcadia 

9.5 

6.0 

5.2 

60.0 

60.5 

Swift’s  Digester  Tankage 

7030 

7394 

J.  M.  Wagner,  Roann..  _ 

10.0 

6.0 

5 1 

60.0 

64.0 

Swift’s  Digester  Tankage  153 

7030 

7413 

M.  S.  Smith,  Goldsmith 

8.2 

6.0 

9.3 

60.0 

57  3 

Swift’s  Digester  Tankage 

7030 

7421 

W.  J.  Lawson,  Chase  . . 

6.4 

6.0 

8.3 

60.0 

60.8 

Swift’s  Digester  Tankage 

7030 

7443 

Harting  & Co.,  Elwood  _ _ . 

6.5 

6.0 

8.3 

60.0 

60  1 

Swift’s  Digester  Tankage _ 

7060 

7613 

Busenbark  Elevator,  Waveland. 

8.2 

■6.0 

8.6 

60.0 

58  6 

Swift’s  Digester  Tankage _ 

7030 

7680 

Pendleton  Feed  & Fuel  Co., 

Pendleton  ... 

6.7 

6.0 

6.0 

60.0 

60.2 

Swift’s  Digester  Tankage 

7030 

7729 

Farmers  Grain  & Seed  Co., 

Darlington  __  ...  

8.1 

6.0 

3.8 

60.0 

64.8 

Swift’s  Digester  Tankage 

7030 

8005 

Daniel  McDermott,  Elwood 

6.7 

6.0 

8.4 

60.0 

60.7 

Swift’s  Digester  Tankage  154 

7030 

8009’ 

Harting  & Co.,  Elwood  

7.0 

6.0 

7.9 

60.0 

61.5 

Swift’s  Digester  Tankage  155 

7030 

8011 

H.  H.  Pinney,  Wanatah 

5.2 

6.0 

6.9 

60.0 

67.1 

Swift’s  Digester  Tankage  

7030 

8159 

Kraus  & Apfelbaum,  Ft.  Wayne 

5.8 

6.0 

6.8 

60.0 

63.2 

Swift’s  Digester  Tankage ... 

7030 

8197 

C.  E.  Bash  & Co.,  Huntington 

5.4 

6.0 

6.7 

60.0 

63  3 

Swift’s  Digester  Tankage __ 

7030 

8295 

Montmorenci  Elevator  Co., 

Montmorenci  

6.5 

6.0 

8.5 

60.0 

59  2 

Swift’s  Digester  Tankage 

7030 

829 8 

Wakarusa  Milling  Co., 

Wakarusa  _ _ __  __ 

6.3 

6.0 

6.8 

60.0 

62.3 

t+Swift’s  Digester  Tankage 

7030 

8337 

Huffstetter  & Gray,  Nabb  . __ 

9.2 

6.0 

7.1 

60.0 

60.2 

Swift’s  Digester  Tankage 

7030 

8373 

C.  A.  Mendenhall,  Economy 

5.6 

6.0 

7.2 

60.0 

62.0 

Tanking  & Fertilizing  Company,  The, 

Muncie,  Ind. 

Feeding  Tankage 

5620 

5919 

Manufacturers 

8.2 

9.0 

18.2 

43.0 

55.8 

Feeding  Tankage  lr,e 

5620 

6313 

Manufacturers  __ 

24.5 

9.0 

15.4 

43.0  I 

43  3 

Feeding  Tankage  _ ... 

5626 

7892 

Caldwell  Tanking  Co.,  Muncie. 

4.1 

9.0 

24.3 

43.0 

53.0 

Wabash  Fertilizer  Company, 

Wabash.  Ind. 

Meat  & Bone  Tankage 

7605  1 

5558  1 

Manufacturers  _ _ 

27.1 

8.0 

14.9 

40.0 

47.2 

* Not  tagged 
f Before  registration 
ft  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished 

150  Stomach  offal  present 

151  500  lbs.  removed  from  sale 


152  400  lbs.  returned  to  mfrs. 

153  Refund.  See  page  20 

154  3 i/20  tons  returned  to  mfrs. 

155  1 Vz  tons  returned  to  mfr. 

156  Stomach  offal  present 


86 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found | 

8066 

6166 

Little  Crow  Milling  Co., 

Warsaw  

9.5 

3.0 

19.9 

40.0 

49.4 

8066 

7167 

Little  Grow  Milling  Co., 

Warsaw  __ 

7.9 

3.0 

18.0 

40.0 

53.4 

8066 

8063 

Manufacturers 

12.9 

3.0 

11.8 

40.0 

52.7 

8540 

7184 

J.  L.  Morgan,  Lyons 

9.0 

6.0 

8.9 

60.0 

62.1 

8828 

7592 

Manufacturers  _ _ 

10.2 

8.0 

17.1 

40.0 

46.8 

8202 

6302 

M.  A.  Conroy,  Jeffersonville 

7.2 

11.0 

10.0 

36.4 

38.3 

4169 

6582 

E.  F.  Johnson,  Paoli ..  ___ 

8.7 

10.0 

18.3 

40.0 

47.9 

8175 

5897 

Pierce  Elevator,  Union  City 

12.9 

5.0 

8.2 

60.0 

48.7 

2709 

5640 

Edw.  F.  Goeke  Co.,  Evansville 

7.7 

0.5 

1.0 

8.0 

9.5 

2709 

8206 

W.  H.  Small  & Co.,  Evansville- 

6.9 

0.5 

0.9 

8.0 

11.0 

8652 

7617 

Lacy  Feed  Store,  Noblesville— 

9.3 

6.0 

6.4 

20.0 

22.0 

8652 

8172 

Maumee  Valley  Mills, 

New  Haven 

8.0 

6.0 

8.8 

20.0 

21.3 

8654 

7174 

Manufacturer  

10.1 

3.0 

9.2 

6.0 

11.9 

3030 

5808 

Manufacturers  _ _ 

11.5 

4.0 

7.6 

90 

10.3 

3030 

6884 

Manufacturers  _ 

8.6 

4.0 

7.0 

9.0 

10.1 

7388 

6796 

Chas.  W.  Brizius  Co.,  Evansville 

9.1 

4.0 

4.1 

8.3 

9 5 

7388 

7886 

Manufacturers  _ 

9.1 

4.0 

6.7 

8.3 

10.5 

2163 

6803 

Manufacturers  

11.3 

4.0 

6.2 

7.0 

11.2 

6129 

6722 

Manufacturer  

10.1 

2.0 

6.7 

8.0 

9.7 

1728 

6025 

Manufacturers  

11.9 

4.0 

5.0 

7.0 

8.9 

8747 

7801 

Manufacturers  

9.4 

2.5 

4.7 

6.0 

7.6 

1 3673 

7145 

1 Manufacturer  

9.8 

4.0 

5.0 

78 

9.5 

Warsaw  Fertilizer  & Tanking  Company, 
Warsaw,  Ind. 

Tankage  


Tankage  

Tankage 157  

Western  Packing  & Provision  Company, 
Union  Stock  Yards,  Chicago,  111. 
Western  Digester  Tankage  156 


Whitley  County  Tankage  Company, 
Columbia  City,  Ind. 

■^Feeding  Tankage 


Worm  & Company,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 
Eureka  Concentrated  Hog  Pood  158_ 

Wuichet  Fertilizer  Company,  The, 
Dayton,  Ohio 

Stock  Tankage  158  

60%  Tankage169 


DRIED  SUGAR  BEET  PULP 

Larrowe  Milling  Company,  The, 
Detroit,  Mich. 

Dried  Beet  Pulp  

Dried  Beet  Pulp 


COCOANUT  OIL  MEAL 

Proctor  & Gamble  Distributing  Com- 
pany, Port  Ivory,  Staten  Island,  N.  Y. 

P.  & G.  Copra  Oil  Meal 

P.  & G.  Copra  Oil  Meal 


CORN  BRAN 


Bloomfield  Mill  & Elevator  Company, 
Bloomfield,  Ind. 

tCorn  Bran 

Boonville  Milling  Company, 

Boonville,  Ind. 

Corn  Bran  

Corn  Bran  


Brizius  Company,  The  Chas.  W., 
Newburgh,  Ind. 

Eagle  Corn  Bran 

Eagle  Corn  Bran 


Browning  Milling  Company,  W.  A. 
Evansville,  Ind. 

Corn  Bran  


Cauble,  O.  L.,  Pekin,  Ind. 
Corn  Bran 


Cauble  & Dunlevy,  Henry ville,  Ind. 
Corn  Bran  


Cutsinger  & Thompson,  Shelbyville,  Ind. 
Corn  Bran 


Hampton,  W.  D.,  Worthington,  Ind. 
Corn  Bran  


T Before  registration 

166  Stomach  offal  present 

167  Stomach  offal  and  appreciable 

sand  present 


amount  of 


168  Stomach  offal  present 

159  Refund.  See  page  20.  Stomach  offal  present 


87 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Number 

Crude 

Crude 

fn  4- 

protein 

Label 

o 

Sample  secured  from 

2+j 

per  cent. 

per  cent. 

o 

3 § 

. TJ 

TJ 

. TS 

T3 

o 

fE 

o 

CD 

£ 

m O 

o <0 

S ft 

Guar- 

antee 

£ 

I 

Guar- 

antee 

§ 

& 

Home  Mill  & Grain  Company, 

Mt.  Vernon,  Ind. 

2598 

6896 

Manufacturers  — 

8.9 

5.0 

8.5 

8.0 

11.7 

Kennedy  Milling  Company,  The  Geo.  W., 

Shelbyville,  Ind. 

— 

7791 

6986 

Manufacturers  * 

8.7 

5.0 

8.5 

8.0 

11.1 

7791 

7862 

Manufacturers  __  

8.0 

5.0 

10.0 

8.0 

11.9 

Moore  Milling  Company,  R.  P., 

Princeton,  Ind. 

999 

6717 

Manufacturers  

9.4 

5.0 

7.2 

8.0 

9.5 

Richmond  Com  Mills,  Richmond,  Ind. 

1727 

7953 

Richmond  Roller  Mills, 

Richmond 

10.5 

5.0 

6.6 

8.0 

10.5 

Shine  & Company,  John  H., 

New  Albany,  Ind. 

6677 

6271 

Manufacturers 

9.4 

5.0 

1.9 

8.0 

8.0 

Sims  Milling  Company,  Frankfort,  Ind. 

6926 

7770 

Manufacturers  

8.1 

3.5 

8.8 

8.0 

10.3 

Smith,  D.  R.,  Tipton,  Ind. 

rinrn  Rran 

1543 

5562 

Manufacturer 

11.1 

5.0 

10.5 

8.0 

11.7 

Stader,  Frank  E.,  Evansville,  Ind. 

rinrn  Bran 

6343 

6838 

Manufacturer 

10.5 

5.0 

9.0 

8.0 

10.7 

Valentine  & Valentine,  Franklin,  Ind. 

rinm  Rran 

1999 

6559 

Manufacturers 

9.3 

3.9 

8.8 

6.9 

11.2 

Yaw  Bros.,  Terre  Haute,  Ind. 

rinrn  Bran 

6450 

6659 

Manufacturers 

9.9 

4.8 

6.3 

8.0 

9.6 

CORN  FEED  MEAL 

Akin-ETskine  Milling  Company, 

Evansville,  Ind. 

Cnrn  Fepd  Meal 

8572 

6926 

Akin-Erskine  Milling  Co., 
Inglefield  

9.7 

2.0 

7.5 

9.0 

10.6 

Boonville  Milling  Company, 

Boonville,  Ind. 

(lorn  Fped  Mpal 

6851 

6906 

Manufacturers 

10.6 

2.5 

4.4 

7.5 

9.3 

Branch  Grain  & Seed  Company, 

Martinsville,  Ind. 

Corn  Feed  Meal  __ 

3888 

6705 

Manufacturers  _ 

11.7 

2.5 

2.3 

6.0 

7.2 

Brizius  Company,  The  Chas.  W., 

Newburgh,  Ind. 

Eagle  Com  Feed  Meal 

6075 

6797 

Chas.  W.  Brizius,  Co., 

Evansville  _ 

9.8 

2.7 

4.3 

6.8 

9.5 

Browning  Milling  Company,  W.  A., 

Evansville,  Ind. 

Cnrn  Fepd  Meal 

3537 

6804 

Manufacturers  _ 

10.1 

2.4 

4.4 

6.7 

9.7 

Burge-Thomas  Milling  Company, 

Marion,  Ind. 

Corn  Feed  Meal 

5759 

6334 

Manufacturers 

11.7 

2.5 

2.7 

7.5 

8.1 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Company, 

Lafayette.  Ind. 

Corn  Feed  Meal - 

5310 

6789 

Manufacturers  _ 

10.9 

2.0 

•3.1 

7.0 

7.9 

Daniels  & Pickering  Company, 

Middletown,  Ind. 

Corn  Feed  Meal  

4331 

6284 

J.  M.  Walker  & Son, 
Middletown  

11.4 

2.5 

2 9 

7.0 

7.5 

88 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Number 

Crude 

fat 

Crude 

protein 

o 

2 

O +5 

per  cent. 

per  cent. 

Label 

Sample  secured  from 

Official 

o 

<d  n 

ftw 

§ 

R a) 

'8  ^ 
S ft 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Delp  Grain  Company,  E.  E., 

Bourbon,  Ind. 

8372 

5878 

Manufacturers  . 

10.4 

6.0 

4.8 

ll.O- 

10.5 

8872 

7160 

Little  Crow  Milling  Co., 
Bourbon  

10.4 

6.0 

4.4 

ll.O 

12.1 

Emison  & Company,  J.  & S., 

Vincennes,  Ind. 

4464 

8388 

Manufacturers  __ 

7.4 

3.0 

6.0 

8.0 

9.7 

Fairolay  Feed  Mills,  Linton,  Ind. 

6503 

7131 

Manufacturers 

9.7 

2.5 

5.0 

7.0 

10.6 

Farmers  Elevator  Company,  The, 

Jamestown,  Ind. 

8867 

7781 

Manufacturers  _ 

9.5 

2.5 

5.7 

7.5 

10.1 

Greenfield  Milling  Company,  The, 

Greenfield,  Ind. 

7540 

6556 

Manufacturers  - 

10.7 

2.5 

3.7 

7.0 

8.4 

Habig  Bros.,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

1.8 

3.0 

8.0 

. 

8.8 

7844 

7643 

Manufacturers 

9.6 

Hall  Milling  Company,  W.  C., 

Brazil,  Ind. 

L!prn  F'PPd  Meal  * 

5131 

6604 

Manufacturers  _ 

12.6 

3.0 

2 6 

7.0 

7.8 

Indiana  Elevator  Company, 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 
riorn  Fppd  Meal 

2.7 

/ . 

7073 

6542 

Manufacturers  _ 

10.8 

2.5 

7.5 

8.6 

r!nrn  Fppd  Meal  

7073 

7739 

Manufacturers 

11.1 

2.7 

2.8 

7.5 

8.2 

Katterjohn,  Q.  F.,  Boonville,  Ind. 

Corn  Feed  Meal  _ _ 

6852 

6903 

Manufacturer 

10.4 

2.5 

5.5 

7.5 

8.8 

Lash  Flour  Mills,  Fred  B., 

Farmersburg,  Ind. 

Corn  Feed  Meal __  

7783 

5618 

Manufacturers 

12.4 

2.5 

4 5 

7.5 

9.0 

riorn  Fppd  Mpal 

7783 

7228 

Manufacturers 

10.2 

2.5 

3.9 

7.5 

9.0 

Merchants  Hay  & Grain  Company, 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Corn  Feed  Meal 

8535 

6137 

Uhl-Snider  Milling  Co., 

nnnnersyillp 

12.1 

2.4 

2.4 

8.0 

8.0 

Morning  Star  Mills,  Evansville,  Ind. 

Stader’s  Feed  Meal  

4008 

0839 

Frank  E.  Stader,  Evansville 

10.7 

3.0 

8.4 

7.0 

11.5 

Nading  Grain  Company,  Wm,, 

Greensburg,  Ind. 
fflnrn  Fppd  Meal 

8863 

7853 

Manufacturers  _ 

6.5 

2.5 

3.9 

7.5 

8.5 

Pendleton  Feed  & Fuel  Company, 

Pendleton,  Ind. 

Horn  F'epd  Meal 

5146 

6062 

Manufacturers 

13.5 

3.0 

2.6 

7.0 

8.4 

Plainfield  Milling  Company, 

Plainfield,  Ind. 

Corn  Feed  Meal 

7923 

6679 

Manufacturers 

10.6 

2.0 

2.8 

5.0 

7.4 

Schaefer,  Karl  H.,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 
Schaefer’s  Special  Corn  Feed  Meal..  _ 

8119 

6427 

Manufacturer 

10.8 

3.0 

4.7 

8.0 

8.3 

Shine  & Company,  John  H., 

New  Albany,  Ind. 

Star  Fppd  Mpal 

5907 

6270 

Manufacturers  _ 

11.1 

2.5 

3.7 

7.0 

8.8 

Star  Feed  Meal  

5907 

8039 

Manufacturers  _ 

10.2 

2.5 

5.0 

1 7.0 

9.7 

t Before  registration 


89 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Number 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

s 

.2 

Sample  secured  from 

Label 

Official 

u 

on 

m 

a 

Moistui 

per  cen 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Slick  & Company,  L.  E., 

Bloomington,  111. 

Safety  First  Corn  By-Product 

8382 

6114 

Bennett  Taylor,  Taylor  Station 

9.7 

6.0 

6.9 

10.0 

10.7 

Safety  First  Corn  By-Product— 

8382' 

6139 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Lafayette  _ 

8.0 

6.0 

7.8 

10.0 

11.4 

Safety  First  Corn  By-Product 

8382 

6142 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Lafayette  

8.5 

6.0 

6.7 

10.0 

10  8 

Safety  First,  Corn  By-Prndnct 

8382 

6156 

Stiefel  & Levy,  Avilla 

9.6 

6.0 

6.2 

10.0 

11.0 

Safety  First  Cnrn  By-Prndnet 

8382 

6188 

Stiefel  & Levy,  Albion  

10.3 

6.0 

6.4 

10.0 

10.7 

tfSafety  First  Corn  By-Product 

8382 

6220 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Lafayette  __ 

9.7 

6.0 

6.9 

10.0 

11.2 

Safety  First  Corn  By-Product 

8382 

6221 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Lafayette  __  

9.6 

6.0 

7.4 

10.0 

11.4 

Safety  First  Corn  By-Product 

8382' 

6222 

E.  C.  Allvn,  Mulberry 

9.8 

6.0 

7.4 

10.0 

11.3 

Safety  First  Cnrn  By-Prndnet 

8382 

6223 

Forest  Miller,  Mulberry 

10.3 

6.0 

6.8 

10.0 

10.9r 

Safety  First  Cnrn  By-Prndnet 

8382' 

6343 

Otto  Lefforge,  Rossville 

8.5 

6.0 

6.5 

10.0 

10.7 

Safety  First  Corn  By-Product 

8382 

7731 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Linden 

8.6 

6.0 

6.2 

10.0 

11.5 

Safety  First  Corn  By-Product 

83S2 

7947 

Omer  G.  Whelan,  Richmond 

8.8 

6.0 

7.2 

10.0 

11.5 

Stafford  Grain  Company,  Hope,  Ind. 

tCorn  Feed  Meal  __  

8533 

6210 

Manufacturers 

11.3 

2.5 

3.6 

7.5 

7.7 

Sullivan  Mill  & Elevator  Company, 

Sullivan,  Ind. 

Corn  Feed  Meal  

7777 

7207 

Manufacturers 

11.8 

2.5 

3.2 

7.5 

7.8 

Thornburg  Milling  Company, 

Martinsville,  Ind. 

fCom  Feed  Meal  _ ___  __  ___  

8591 

6706 

Manufacturers  _ 

11.1 

2.5 

3 3 1 

7.5 

8.0 

Corn  Feed  Meal  __  __  

8591 

7673 

Manufacturers 

10.0 

2.5 

3.9 

7.5 

8.9 

Whelan,  Omer  G.,  Richmond,  Ind. 

Corn  Feed  Meal 

7709 

6242 

Manufacturer 

11.5 

2.5 

4.4 

7.5 

9.2 

CORN  GERM  MEAE 

American  Hominy  Company, 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Homcoline  Feed  

3929 

5873 

Seottsburg  Elevator,  Scottsburg 

2.3 

5.0 

6.9 

17.0 

17.9 

Homcoline  Feed 

3929 

7039 

Joe  Minch  Chalmers 

4.9 

5.0 

6.8 

17.0 

18.8 

Homcoline  Feed 

3929 

7454 

Bloomington  Milling  Co., 

Bloomington  - 

4.8 

5.0 

7.0 

17.0 

19.4 

ttHomcoline  Feed  __ 

3929 

7939 

T.  S.  Nugen,  Lewisville  _ 

6.1 

5.0 

5.9 

17.0 

1 19.1 

American  Milling  Company,  Peoria,  111. 

Amco  Com  Germ  Meal 

8520 

6676 

Jordan  & Baird,  Kewanna 

4.5 

7.0 

7.6 

18.0 

19.3 

Amco  Com  Germ  Meal  _ 

8520 

7162' 

Acme  Grain  Co.,  North 

Manchester  — __  ___ 

7.6 

7.0 

8.6 

18.0 

19.2 

Amco  Com  Germ  Meal  

8520 

7342 

Union  Hardware  Co.,  Lebanon. 

5.3 

7.0 

9.2 

180 

18.2 

Amco  Cora  Germ  Meal 

8520 

7500 

.1  C Rnrrptt  Smith  Rpnd 

6.1 

7.0 

11.3 

18.0 

18.3 

Amco  Corn  Germ  Meal 

8520 

7501 

J.  C.  Barrett,  South  Bend 

7.1 

7.0 

9.4 

18.0 

19.7 

Amco  Com  Germ  Meal 

8520 

7502 

.T  C Rnrrptt  Smith  Rpnd 

7.3 

7.0 

11.6 

18.0 

19.3 

Amco  Cora  Germ  Meal  _ . 

8520 

7990 

J.  Gienger  & Co.,  Jeffersonville 

7.1 

7.0 

9.4 

18.0 

18.6 

Amco  Com  Germ  Meal 

8520 

8112 

Anchor  Milling  Co.,  Rochester 

6.5 

7.0 

9.4 

18.0 

19.2 

ttAmco  Corn  Germ  Meal  _ 

8907 

8272 

Farmers  Mill  & Elevator  Co., 

Columbia  City  _ 

4.5 

7.0 

9.3 

15.5 

16.4 

*Corn  Germ  Meal  . 

7535 

University  of  Notre  Dame, 

Notre  Dame  

5.5 

11.3 

20  2 

Atlas  Feed  & Milling  Company, 

Peoria,  111. 

Atlas  Corn  Oil  Meal 

8460 

6609 

f^anal  Tfllpva.tnr  On  "Ppm 

6.6 

7.0 

14.7 

18.0 

18.6 

Chicago  Heights  Oil  M’f’g.  Company, 

Chicago,  111. 

“Heights”  Corn  Oilcake  Meal 

7457 

5706 

Sam  Milligen,  Jr.,  Waveland___ 

8.7 

8.0 

9.1 

18.0 

22.7 

“Heights”  Corn  Oilcake  Meal 

7457 

5933 

I.  L.  Carter  & Son,  Upland 

8.3 

8.0 

7.8 

18.0 

20.4 

“Heights”  Corn  Oilcake  Meal 

7457 

6150 

Batchelor  & Barlow,  Sharpsville 

9.5 

80 

88 

18.0 

228 

“Heights”  Com  Oilcake  Meal 

7457 

6990 

Reimann-McCammon  Co.,  Letts 

9.4 

8.0 

-8.0 

18.0 

24.0 

“Heights”  Corn  Oilcake  Meal 

7457 

7414 

Farmers  Elevator  Co.,  Kempton 

10.1 

8.0 

7.7 

18.0 

21.5 

* Not  tagged  f f Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished 

f Before  registration 


90 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

1 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Chicago  Heights  Oil  M’f’g.  Company, 

' 

Chicago,  111. 

“Heights”  Corn  Oilcake  Meal 

7457 

7573 

Sims  Milling  Co.,  Frankfort.. 

8.0 

8.0 

7.7 

18.0 

20.9 

“Heights”  Corn  Oilcake  Meal 

7457 

7727 

Farmers  Grain  & Seed  Co., 

Darlington  

7.0 

8.0 

8.7 

18.0 

22.3 

Heights  Corn  Oilcake  Meal 

8880 

8322 

Crandall  Flouring  Mill,  Crandall 

10.4 

8.0 

7.6 

18.0 

21.6 

Clinton  Sugar  Refining  Company, 

Clinton,  Iowa 

Clinton  Corn  Germ  Meal _ 

6788 

6970 

C.  F.  Johnson  & Son,  Paoli  .. 

6.5 

7.0 

10.3 

20.0 

26.5 

Clinton  Corn  Germ  Meal 

6788 

7125 

J.  W.  McMillen  & Son, 

Ft.  Wayne  __  ._  ._ 

6.3 

7.0 

7.9 

20.0 

21.8 

Clinton  Corn  Germ  Meal 

6788 

7185 

Etna  Lumber  & Milling  Co., 

Etna  Green 

8.1 

7.0 

8.4 

20.0 

23.5 

Clinton  Corn  Germ  Meal  

6788 

7387 

Pleasant  Lake  Elevator  Co., 

Pleasant  Lake  

7.8 

7.0 

7.9 

20.0 

21.3 

Corn  Products  Refining  Company, 

New  York,  N.  Y. 

Diamond  Hog  Meal 

7478 

5370 

Oh  as.  W.  McCormick  & Son, 

Logansport  ...  

7.3 

7.0 

7.4 

18.0 

22.9 

Diamond  Hog  Meal 

7478 

6128 

Tuhey  Canning  Co.,  Muncie — 

8.8 

7.0 

9.2 

18.0 

25.0 

Diamond  Hog  Meal _ 

7478 

66001 

Morrow  Grain  Co.,  Wabash 

7.8 

7.0 

8.6 

18.0 

24.4 

Diamond  Hog  Meal  __  

7478 

7523 

J.  H.  Williamson  Co.,  Muncie.. 

8.3 

7.0 

8.6 

18.0 

23.2 

Diamond  Hog  Meal  . _ 

7478 

7814 

Edw.  F.  Goeke  Co.,  Evansville. 

9.3 

7.0 

8.4 

18.0 

24.8 

Argo  Corn  Oil  Cake  Meal  

7720 

6338 

W.  W.  Pearson,  Upland 

9.2 

7.0 

6.7 

18.0 

22.0 

Argo  Corn  Oil  Cake  Meal 

7720 

7052 

C.  J.  Dils,  Aurora  

10.2 

7.0 

7.2 

18.0 

25.1 

ttArgo  Corn  Oil  Cake  Meal 

7720 

7070 

John  S.  Graves,  Carmel 

9.3 

7.0 

10.1 

18.0 

25.1 

Argo  Corn  Oil  Cake  Meal 

7720 

7293 

Middlebury  Mill  Co., 

Middlebury  ...  

8.0 

7.0 

8.2 

18.0 

25.7 

Argo  Corn  Oil  Cake  Meal 100 

7720 

7596 

C.  E.  Bash  & Co.,  Huntington. 

7.9 

7.0 

7.8 

18.0 

25.8 

Dewey  Bros.  Company,  The, 

Blanchester,  Ohio 

Corn  Germ  Oil  Meal 

8662 

7292 

Wolf  & Bevington, 

Shipshewana  __  ...  

8.8 

6.0 

9.0 

20.0 

22.3 

Hubinger  Bros.  Company,  J.  C., 

Keokuk,  Iowa 

Corn  Germ  Oil  Meal 

8921 

8836 

New  Albany  Milling  Co., 

New  Albany  

4.2 

9.0 

11.3 

22.0 

24.9 

Hurst  & Company,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Corn  Oil  Cake  Meal _ 

8528 

6239 

Omer  G.  Whelan,  Richmond... 

7.9 

7.0 

11.0 

18.0 

24.2 

Corn  Oil  Cake  Meal 

8528 

6378 

Ed.  M.  Murphy,  Carmel.  

8.7 

7.0 

10.7 

18.0 

24.5 

tfCorn  Oil  Cake  Meal 

8528 

7278 

R.  E.  Findley,  Arcadia 

7.5 

7.0 

10.0 

18.0 

24.5 

tfCorn  Oil  Cake  Meal 

8528 

7279 

R.  E.  Findley,  Arcadia 

8.7 

7.0 

11.0 

18.0 

23.3 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Yellow  Corn  Germ  Meal 

6429 

6369 

Banister  Grain  Co.,  Treaty..  __ 

8.6 

8.0 

9.5 

18.0 

21.6 

White  Corn  Germ  Meal  __  

7220 

5579 

Klondike  Milling  Co.,  Danville. 

2.3 

6.0 

7.3 

19.0 

19.7 

White  Corn  Germ  Meal  ___  __  

7220 

6041 

Hubert  French,  Linn  Grove 

2.7 

6.0 

6.7 

19  0 

20.4 

White  Corn  Germ  Meal 

7220 

6151 

James  H.  Harper,  Sharpsville. 

3.2 

6.0 

6.1 

19.0 

20.0 

White  Corn  Germ  Meal  _ 

7220 

6305 

Orescent  Milling  Co., 

Crothersville  

3.7 

6.0 

5.8 

19.0 

19.0 

Piel  Bros.  Starch  Company, 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

ttP  Bro.  Corn  Oil  Cake  _ ... 

7910 

6203 

John  S.  Chandler,  Greeneastle. 

9.6 

10.0 

11.0 

15.0 

19.5 

Pincoffs  Company,  Maurice, 

Chicago,  111. 

Pinco  Brand  Yellow  Corn  Germ  Meal__ 

6729 

5773 

New  Albany  Milling  Co., 

New  Albany  

7.8 

8.0 

10.1 

20.0 

24.8 

Pinco  Brand  Yellow  Corn  Germ  Meal__ 

6729 

6189 

Stiefel  & Levy,  Albion 

8.0 

8.0 

10.8 

20.0 

22.0 

Pinco  Brand  Yellow  Corn  Germ  Meal_. 

6729 

6301 

Crescent  Milling  Co., 

Crothersville  . 

8.6 

8.0 

7.6 

20.0 

24.7 

Pinco  Brand  Yellow  Corn  Germ  Meal_. 

6729 

6584 

L.  O.  Ralston,  Orleans 

9.6 

8.0 

8.9 

20.0 

29.4 

Pinco  Brand  Yellow  Corn  Germ  Meal.. 

6729 

8251 

Home  Grain  Co.,  Berlein 

4.6 

8.0 

11.3 

20.0 

22.5 

Pinco  Brand  Yellow  Corn  Germ  Meal.. 

6729 

8254) 

Home  Grain  Co.,  Berlein 

4.3 

8.0 

11.8 

20.0 

23.6 

ft  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished  ieo  4 tons  withdrawn  from  sale.  Corn  gluten  feed 

present 


9i 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

| Found j 

Semans  Edible  Oils  Company, 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Germena  Germ  Oil  Meal 

8210 

5628 

Marshall  & O’Hair,  Greencastle 

4.5 

6.0 

8.6 

19.0 

18.8 

ffGermena,  Germ  Oil  Meal 

8216 

5708 

Hargrave  Bros.,  Russellville 

4.3 

6.0 

7.1 

19.0 

18.8 

8216 

5738 

Snekow  Co.,  Franklin 

4.7 

6.0 

7.3 

19.0 

17.7 

Germena  Germ  Oil  Meal  _ ... 

8216 

6055 

Ohas.  Kelly  & Son,  Fairmount- 

5.5 

6.0 

7.5 

19.0 

18  0 

8210 

6569 

R.  R.  McDaniel,  Danville.-  . 

5.5 

6.0 

9.2 

19.0 

17.7 

“Germena”  Germ  Oil  Meal 

8539 

6566 

Suckow  Co.,  Franklin .. 

5.4 

6.0 

10.3 

18.0 

19.7 

“Germena”  Germ  Oil  Meal 162 

8539 

7213 

Farmers  Union  Elevator  Co., 

Carlisle  

6.3 

6.0 

10.0 

18.0 

23.6 

“Germena”  Germ  Oil  Meal 

8539 

7368 

F.  H.  Burkhart,  Tipton 

5.3 

6.0 

10.1 

18.0 

19.2 

“Oermena”  Germ  Oil  Meal 

8539 

7378 

Manufacturers  

4.1 

6.0 

7.8 

18.0 

19.2 

8539 

8016 

O.  L.  Cauhle,  Salp.m 

4.5 

6.0 

7.6 

18.0 

18.3 

“Germena”  Germ  Oil  Meal _ _ 

8539 

8327 

Fisher  fr,  Fisher,  Nia.hh 

4.8 

6.0 

7.4 

18.0 

17.3 

“Germena”  Germ  Oil  Meal 

8539 

8353 

Suckow  Co.,  Franklin  _ _ 

3.8 

6.0 

10.6 

18.0 

17.0 

“Germena”  Germ  Oil  Meal 

8539 

8354 

Joseph  H.  Mullendore,  Franklin 

4.4 

6.0 

9.1 

18.0 

16.1 

Simpson,  H.  E.,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Simpson’s  Corn  Oilcake  Meal  . 

8005! 

5593 

W.  C.  Hall  Milling  Co.,  Brazil.. 

5.5 

9.0 

9.5 

21.0 

21.6 

Simpson’s  Corn  Oilcake  Meal ___ 

8005 

5852 

W.  D.  Hurn  Milling  Co., 

Corydon  Junction  _.  __  

5.2 

9.0 

9.2 

21.0 

22.0 

Simpson’s  Corn  Oilcake  Meal 

8005 

6061 

Baker  & Hodges,  Pendleton 

5.2 

9.0 

10.8 

21.0 

22.7 

Simpson’s  Corn  Oilcake  Meal - _ 

8005 

7344 

Shirley  fr,  .Tones,  Lebanon 

6.5 

9.0 

9.1 

21.0 

24.4 

Union  Starch  & Refining  Company, 

Edinburg,  Ind. 

Union  Corn  Germ  Meal  _ 

2237 

5391 

Chas.  H.  Reynolds,  Osgood 

5.4 

8.0 

12.6 

18.0 

19.3 

Union  Corn  Germ  Meal  . 

2237 

6370 

A Smith  &,  On  , Sheridan 

4.9 

8.0 

13.5 

18.0 

19.1 

Union  Com  Germ  Meal 

2237 

6671 

Erie  Elevator,  Rochester 

6.1 

8.0 

12.2 

18.0 

19.7 

Union  Corn  Germ  Meal 

2237 

7737 

Farmers  Grain  & Seed  Co., 

CORN  GERM  MEAL  AND  CORN 

Darlington  

5.8 

8.0 

11.1 

18.0 

19.2 

DISTILLERS  DRIED  GRAINS 

Semens  Edible  Oils  Company, 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Maizmeal 

8240 

5904 

V T Reid,  Salem 

5.8 

8.0 

9.7 

25.0 

24.1 

CORN  GLUTEN  FEED 

Chicago  Heights  Oil  Mfg.  Company, 

Chicago,  111. 

“Prize”  Corn  Glutenfeed  __  

7266 

8146 

John  AT.  Sample,  Madison 

7.0 

1.0 

1.9 

23.0 

22.7 

Clinton  Sugar  Refining  Company, 

Clinton,  Iowa 

Clinton  Corn  Gluten  Feed  

5452 

8034 

O.  Gandy  & Co.,  South  Whitley 

7.3 

3.0 

3.0 

23.0 

26.4 

Continental  Cereal  Company, 

Peoria,  111. 

Continental  Gluten  Feed  

6066 

6047 

Berne  Milling  Co.,  Berne 

7.2 

6.0 

10.4 

26.5 

30.5 

ft  Continental  Gluten  Feed  

6066 

7091 

Rerne  Milling  On.,  kerne 

7.1 

6.0 

12.7 

26.5 

34.0 

Corn  Products  Refining  Company, 

New  York,  N.  Y. 

Buffalo  Corn  Gluten  Feed 

5530 

6352 

McMahan  Bros.,  Valparaiso 

9.1 

1.0 

1.7 

23  0 

27.5 

Buffalo  Corn  Gluten  Feed 

51530 

7351 

Wm.  Steeb,  Crown  Point 

10.5 

1.0 

1.6 

23.0 

26.8 

Buffalo  Corn  Gluten  Feed 

5530 

7384 

Kraus  & Apfelbaum,  Auburn.. 

11.9 

1.0 

1.4 

23  0 

28.2 

Buffalo  Corn  Gluten  Feed 

5530 

7815 

Edw.  F.  Goeke  Co.,  Evansville 

10.3 

1.0 

1.1 

23.0 

25.9 

Buffalo  Corn  Gluten  Feed  103  

5530 

8181 

Huntertown  Grain  Co., 

Huntertown  

9.4 

1.0 

9.0 

23.0 

24.8 

Hubinger  Bros.  Company,  J.  C., 

Keokuk,  Iowa 

K K K Corn  Gluten  Feed 

6638 

5885 

O.  L.  Oanhle,  Pekin 

9.8 

2.4 

3.6 

23.0 

24.9 

Union  Starch  & Refining  Company, 

Edinburg,  Ind. 

Union  Gluten  Feed  _ 

559 

6373 

McOardle  Grain  Co.,  Terhune... 

8.6 

3.0 

2.8 

24.0 

24.8 

Union  Gluten  Feed  . 

559 

6627 

Erie  Elevator,  Rochester  . _ 

7.0 

3.0 

3.2 

24.0 

23  5 

yt  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished 

161  Relabeled  with  No.  8539 

162  Wrong  label  attached.  Relabeled  with  No.  8240 


163  16*4  tons  removed  from  sale.  Misbranded. 
Relabeled  No.  7478 


92 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found  j 

Union  Starch  & Refining;  Company, 

Edinburg,  Ind. 

Union  Gluten  Feed  

55y 

6737 

Uhl-Snider  Milling  Co., 

Connersville 

8.8 

3.0 

1.8 

24.0 

25.4 

Union  Gluten  Feed 

559 

7728 

Farmers  Grain  & Seed  Co., 

Darlington  __  ..  ..  

8.3 

3.0 

2.1 

24.0 

25.4 

Union  Gluten  Feed  

559 

7798 

Cutsinger  & Thompson, 

Shelbyville  

8.0 

3.0 

3.1 

24.0 

24.1 

Union  Gluten  Feed  

559 

8082' 

Pickens  & Brengle,  Orleans 

7.5 

3.0 

2.4 

24.0 

25.4 

No  Manufacturer 

*C41nt.pn  Fepd 

7409 

Lon  & Oren  Cook,  Bargersville. 

9.6 

7.1 

24.1 

CORN  GLUTEN  MEAL 

Corn  Products  Refining  Company, 

New  York,  N.  Y. 

6979 

6456 

Rnppr  & Brown,  Hobart 

8.2 

1.0 

0.6 

40.0 

45.5 

6979 

7362 

Wm.  Stpp.b,  Crown  Point 

7.0 

1.0 

1.0 

40.0 

40.1 

Diamond  Corn  Gluten  Meal 

6979 

7364 

J.  Jay  Baldwin,  Crown  Point.. 

io!i 

1.0 

o!6 

4o!o 

43!  5 

7422 

Hurst  & Co.,  Indianapolis 

8.3 

0.9 

41.6 

tfDiamond  Corn  Gluten  Meal  

6979 

8184 

Reed  Bros.  Coal  & Feed  Co., 

Ft.  Wayne 

7.4 

1.0 

0.8 

40.0 

45.0 

HOMINY  FEED,  MEAL  OR  CHOP 

American  Hominy  Company, 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Homco  Hominy  Feed  

7614 

5619 

Fred  B.  Lash  Flour  Mills, 

Farmersburg  

8.6 

6.0 

7.3 

10.0 

10.6 

Homco  Hominy  Feed _ _ 

7614 

5637 

Edw.  F.  Goeke  Co.,  Evansville.. 

8.6 

6.0 

9.5 

10.0 

10.7 

*Homco  Hominy  Feed 

6303 

W.  E.  Everhart,  Austin 

8.7 

6.4 

10.2 

Homco  Hominy  Feed 

7614 

6307 

John  Gienger  & Co., 

Jeffersonville  _ 

8.8 

6.0 

6.6 

10.0 

11.3 

Homco  Hominy  Feed __ 

7614 

6682 

Plainfield  Milling  Co.,  Plainfield 

7.7 

6.0 

6.4 

10.0 

11.0 

Homco  Hominy  Feed ___ 

7614 

7075 

J.  W.  Linkhart  & Son, 

North  Vernon 

10.4 

6.0 

6.4 

10  0 

10.9 

Homco  Hominy  Feed  

7614 

7152 

C.  M.  Gushard,  Laketon  

8.2 

6.0 

8.3 

10.0 

11.3 

Homco  Hominy  Feed 

7614 

7314 

J.  W.  Linkhart  & Son, 

North  Vernon 

7.5 

6.0 

7.7 

10.0 

11.1 

tfHomco  Hominy  Feed  _ 

7614 

7564 

Cash  Flour  & Feed  Store, 

South  Bend  ...  

7.7 

6.0 

9.0 

10.0 

11.4 

tfHomco  Hominy  Feed _ 

7614 

7651 

Habig  Bros.,  Indianapolis 

9.0 

6.0 

5.9 

10.0 

10.6 

Homco  Hominy  Feed 

7614 

7670 

F.  W.  Gilbert,  Dana  . 

7.9 

6.0 

8.1 

10.0 

11.7 

Homco  Hominy  Feed 

7614 

77801 

Lingeman-Adams  & Co., 

Brownsburg  ... 

7.9 

6.0 

6.7 

10.0 

11.4 

Homco  Hominy  Feed 

7614 

8352 

Joseph  H.  Mullendore,  Franklin 

7.9 

6.0 

5.7 

10.0 

9.6 

Amo  Mill  & Elevator  Company, 

Amo,  Ind. 

tfAmo  Hominy  Feed 

5778 

7410 

Amo  Mill  & Elevator  Co., 

Bargersville  .. 

8.2 

7.0 

8.7 

10.0 

11.1 

Blair  Milling  Company,  The, 

Atchison,  Kans. 

Blair’s  Hominy  Feed  

6154 

8269 

Farmers  Mill  & Elevator  Co., 

Columbia  City,  Ind. 

8.8 

6.5 

8.1 

9.0 

10.9 

Deutsch  & Sickert  Company, 

Milwaukee,  Wis. 

Success  Hominy  Feed  164 

6071 

6213 

Charlestown  Milling  Co., 

Charlestown  

10.0 

6.0 

10.1 

9.0 

11.3 

Eberts  & Bro.,  North  Vernon,  Ind. 

Eberts  Hominy  Feed  . 

6366 

5440 

C.  W.  Jessup,  Madison 

8.2 

7.0 

7.9 

10  0 

10.5 

Eberts  Hominy  Feed 

6366' 

6991 

Reimann-MeCammon  Co.,  Letts 

8.4 

7.0 

9.7 

10.0 

11.3 

Eberts  Grain  Company,  The,  Nabb,  Ind. 

Hominy  Meal 

4460 

6214 

Charlestown  Milling  Co., 

Charlestown  

9.0 

7.5 

8.9 

10.0 

11.1 

Elevator  Milling  Company, 

Springfield,  111. 

Hominy  Feed 

2514 

7072 

W.  P.  Neel,  Holton 

10.1 

7.5 

8.7 

10.0 

11.4 

* Not  tagged  101  9*/>  tons  removed  from  sale.  Relabeled  with 

ft  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished  No.  8553.  Made  from  yellow  corn 


93 


TABLE  IV.— Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

73 

*3 

& 

o 

| 

u 

|Q 

C 

a 

3? 

a § 

•a 

c 

3 

o 

i 173 

u 

5 3 

i 

Emison  & Company,  J.  & S., 

(Baltic  Mills),  Vincennes,  Ind. 

Hominy  Feed  ___  _ _ __ 

8040 

5742 

Scarlett  & Pope,  West  Baden.. 

4.5 

7.0 

9.6 

80 

11.2 

8040 

8389 

Manufacturer  

5.7 

7.0 

6.3 

8.0 

10.1 

Evans  Milling  Company, 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

20 

5439 

O.  G.  Hunger,  Madison 

8.7 

7.5 

8.2 

10.0 

11.1 

Hominy  Feed  _ _ 

20 

7335 

Otto  Lef  forge,  Rossville 

8.3 

7.5 

8.6 

10.0 

11.5 

Hominy  Feed 

20 

8348 

New  Castle  Elevator  Co., 

New  Castle 

7.5 

7.5 

7.8 

10.0 

10.0 

Ewing  Mill  Company,  Brownstown,  Ind. 

Hominy  Meal  

290 

8830 

John  H.  Shine  & Co., 

New  Albany _ 

12.1 

7.5 

6.0 

9.0 

9.4 

Farmers  Hominy  Mill,  Seymour,  Ind. 

Farmers  Hominy  Feed 

8298 

5871 

Cauble  & Dunlevy,  Henry ville. 

9.0 

7.5 

8.1 

10.0 

10.6 

Farmers  Hominy  Feed 

8290 

0787 

C.  G.  Clark  & Son,  Rushville.. 

6.8 

7.5 

9.0 

10.0 

11.2 

Fisher  Bros.,  Evansville,  Ind. 

8737 

7843 

Manufacturers  _ _ 

8.3 

6.0 

7.7 

10.0 

11.0 

Hall  Milling  Company,  W.  C., 

Brazil,  Ind. 

Hall’s  Hominy  Feed  _ 

7482 

5691 

Manufacturers 

7.6 

5.0 

8.8 

9.5 

11.2 

Kidder  & Company.  F.  L.,  Paris,  111. 

Peerless  Hominy  Feed  

2449 

5713 

Stiefel  & Levy,  Avilla  

6.8 

7.5 

8.5 

8.5 

10.7 

Krause  Milling  Company,  Chas.  A., 

Milwaukee,  Wis. 

ttBadger  Hominy  Feed  _ 

5101 

6040 

Hartman  & Dotterer,  Bluffton 

10.2 

6.0 

7.5 

10.0 

11.9 

Badger  Hominy  Feed 

5101 

6187 

Stiefel  & Levy,  Albion 

8.0 

6.0 

7.3 

10.0 

12  2 

Badger  Hominy  Feed  165 

5101 

0694 

Jacob  Portman,  Columbia  City 

7.9 

6.0 

8.1 

10.0 

11.4 

Badger  Hominy  Feed 

5101 

0699 

Chas.  A.  Krause  Milling  Co., 

Columbia  City  ._  

8.1 

6.0 

7.4 

10.0 

12.0 

Badger  Hominy  Feed 

5101 

6700' 

Chas.  A.  Krause  Milling  Co., 

Columbia  City  _ 

11.1 

6.0 

8.5 

10.0 

12.3 

Badger  Hominy  Feed ___ 

5101 

07O1 

Columbia  City  Mill  & Elevator 

Co.,  Columbia  City  

10.2 

6.0 

7.2 

10.0 

11.3 

Badger  Hominy  Feed  166 

5101 

7352 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis 

8.4 

6.0 

7.7 

10.0 

11.6 

Badger  Hominy  Feed 

5101 

8060 

H.  T /.  Hagep,  Peru 

7.1 

6.0 

7.4 

10.0 

11.8 

Kuhn  & Company,  Paul, 

Terre  Haute,  Tnd. 

Hominy  Feed 1(57  _ 

2735 

6864 

Paul  Kuhn  & Co.,  Clay  City 

9.1 

7.7 

8.1 

10.0 

11.8 

Louisville  Cereal  Mill  Company, 

Louisville,  Ky. 

Hominy  Meal  ..  __ 

2020 

5867 

T A.  Pass,  Sellarshnrg 

7.1 

7.0 

7.8 

9.0 

10.6 

Mosher  & Company,  A.  B., 

Columbia  City,  Ind. 

t+Hominy  Feed 

8482 

6163 

F.  F.  Mosher,  Columbia  City.. 

9.4 

6.0 

8.8 

10.0 

11.4 

National  Feed  Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

“Hominy  Feed”  __  ___  

3020 

6165 

F.  F.  Mosher,  Columbia  City.. 

9.9 

7.0 

10.0 

10.0 

12.2 

“Hominy  Feed”  

3020 

6640 

Prater-Mottier  Co.,  Terre  Haute 

8.8 

7.0 

8.9 

10.0 

11.3 

“Hominy  Feed”  168  . __  _ 

3O20 

0098 

S.'F.  Tremble  y Co., 

Columbia  City  

9.7 

7.0 

9.1 

10.0 

11.9 

“Hominy  Feed”  108  . 

3020 

0725 

Aa.rnn  Turley,  Orleans 

9.2 

7.0 

8.3 

10.0 

11.2 

“Hominy  Feed”  

3020 

7582 

Melvin  Pence,  Columbia  City.. 

8.9 

7.0 

8.5 

10.0 

11.5 

tt“Hominy  Feed” _ 

3020 

7936 

Hawley  Hall,  Lewisville 

8.3 

7.0 

9.6 

10  0 

11.1 

“Hominy  Feed”  . 

3020 

8071 

A.  B.  Mosher  & Co., 

Columbia  City  

7.7 

7.0 

8.6 

10.0 

11.6 

Perin  Bros.,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 

Hominy  Feed ..  

8721 

7063  | 

O.  W.  Curtis,  Aurora  ______ 

7.5 

7.0 

9.2 

10.0 

11.6 

ft  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished 

165  Small  amount  of  yellow  corn  present 
186  40  tons  removed  from  sale.  Replaced  on  sale. 
Corn  germ  meal  and  corn  grits  present 


1(57  Sample  composed  of  corn  grits,  germ,  and 
bran  from  yellow  corn.  Relabeled  No.  8614 
188  Wrong  labels  attached.  Relabeled  with  No. 
8637 


94 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

TJ 

a 

3 

o 

fa 

Guar- 

anteed 

— 

TS 

3 

1 

Pfeffer  Milling  Company,  Lebanon,  111. 

1 

Pfeffer  Milling  Co.,  Hominy  Feed..  __ 

2617 

5781 

John  Gienger  & Co., 

Jeffersonville  

7.7 

8.0 

9.6 

10.0 

11.3 

Plymouth  Milling  Company, 

Lemars,  Iowa 

**Pure  Hominy  Peed  169 _ 

7047 

P.  W.  Havens,  Hartford  City__ 

10.1 

8.9 

11.1 

Raidt  Milling  Company,  P., 

Louisville,  Ky. 

Hominy  Meal  _ 

1920 

5777 

L.  Thorn  & Sons,  New  Albany. 

7.1 

6.0 

8.7 

8.0 

11.9 

Hominy  Meal _ _ 

1920 

7433 

John  Gienger  & Co., 

Jeffersonville  

6.2 

6.0 

9.2 

8.0 

11.3 

Stiefel  & Levy,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind. 

7860 

6514 

Stiefel  & Levy,  A villa 

9.1 

6.5 

9.4 

9.0 

11.4 

Suckow  Company,  Franklin,  Ind. 

“Perfection”  Hominy  Feed  17o 

6177 

Manufacturers  

9.0 

7.5 

7.1 

10.0 

11.4 

Suffern-Hunt  Mills,  Decatur,  111. 

tfAcme  Hominy  Feed  

7479 

5388 

Osgood  Grain  Co.,  Osgood 

9.0 

7.0 

8.6 

10.0 

11.4 

Acme  Hominy  Feed . 

7479 

6618 

Anchor  Milling  Co.,  Rochester. 

7.5 

7.0 

8.8 

10.0 

10.6 

No  Manufacturer 

Hominy  Fped  171 

7411 

Bert  E.  Barnet,  Bargersville 

8.0 

8.8 

11.0 

Hominv  Feed  17i  _ 

7779 

Fairland  Grain  Co.,  Fairland 

8.2 

8.3 

11.5 

VELVET  BEAN  FEED 

Acme-Jones  Company,  Inc., 

Louisville,  Ky. 

Big  J Bean  Meal 

8443 

6278' 

James  M.  Lee  & Co., 

New  Albany  

8.7 

4.0 

4.5 

19.0 

19.3 

Alabama  Black  Belt  Company, 

Montgomery,  Ala. 

Velvet  Bean  and  Pod  Feed  Meal 

8568 

6809 

Boonville  Milling  Co.,  Boonville 

8.1 

4.0 

4.4 

18.5 

19.1 

Joseph  Company,  Dan,  Columbus,  Ga. 

Velvet  Bean  Feed 

8415 

6172 

New  Castle  Elevator  Co., 

New  Castle  

9.0 

45 

4.6 

19.0 

18  5 

Velvet  Bean  Feed 

8415 

6208 

Valentine  & Valentine,  Franklin 

8.5 

4.5 

5.0 

19.0 

20.0 

Velvet  Bean  Feed 

8415 

6976 

Wm.  Nading  Grain  Co., 

Greensburg  ...  ._  ... 

9.7 

4.5 

4.5 

19.0 

18.4 

Diamond  Brand  Velvet  Bean  Feed 

8874 

8131 

Lingeman,  Adams  & Co., 

Brownsburg  

10.2 

4.0 

4.5 

17.5 

18.5 

Diamond  Brand  Velvet  Bean  Feed 

8874 

8347 

Valentine  & Valentine,  Franklin 

9.0 

4.0 

4.2 

17.5 

17.7 

COTTONSEED  FEED 

Buckeye  Cotton  Oil  Company, 

Cincinnati,  Ohio 

Buco  Cottonseed  Feed 

7965 

7964 

P.  A.  Froh,  Corunna.  _ 

7.0 

3.5 

6.8 

20.0 

39.0 

Bnco  Cottonseed  Feed 

7965 

7966 

ri'arl  FppVpt*;  Fnmrma. 

7.0 

3.5 

7.1 

20.0 

39.2 

Buco  Cottonseed  Feed  ___  

7965 

8050 

Kraus  & Apfelbaum,  Ft.  Wayne 

7.3 

3.5 

6.8 

20.0 

36.9 

“Buckeye”  Good  Cottonseed  Feed  ___ 

8184 

5495 

Wm.  Eesley  & Co., 

West  College  Corner  

6.9 

5.0 

6.5 

36.0 

35.5 

“Buckeye”  Good  Cottonseed  Feed 

8184 

5985 

Murdock  Farms  Co.,  Morocco.. 

7.4 

5.0 

5.7 

36.0 

36.7 

“Buckeye”  Good  Cottonseed  Feed 

8184' 

7965 

Carl  Becker,  Corunna 

6.9 

5.0 

7.0 

36.0 

37.3 

“Buckeye”  Good  Cottonseed  Feed  ___ 

8184 

8380 

0.  G.  Whelan,  Richmond 

5.6 

5.0 

6.6 

36.0 

37.5. 

Imperial  Cotto  Sales  Company, 

Chicago,  III. 

Imperial  Cotto  Brand  Cottonseed 

Feed  . 

8094 

6158 

Edw.  F.  Goeke  & Co., 

tflmperial  Cotto  Brand  Cottonseed 

Evansville  

6.5 

3.5 

3.7 

20.0 

21.7 

Feed  ___  _ 

8094 

6329 

M.  Jungles,  Fair  Oaks 

5.8 

3.5 

3.2 

20.0 

21.2 

ttlmperial  Brand  Cottonseed  Feed 

8446 

5969 

G.  H.  Hillis,  Fair  Oaks 

7.9 

4.5 

6.6 

35.0 

35.0 

**  Not  registered  170  20  tons  removed  from  sale.  Relabeled  with 

tf  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished  No.  8521.  Sample  consists  of  corn  grits, 

169  200  lbs.  returned  to  mfrs.  germ  meal  and  bran  from  yellow  and 


white  corn 

i7i  Not  tagged.  Manufacturer’s  name  could  not 
be  ascertained 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Memphis  Cotton  Hull  & Fiber  Company, 

Ltd.,  Memphis,  Tenn. 

“Cyclone”  Cotton  Seed  Feed 

8704 

7970 

G.  E.  Eberhart  & Son,  Dale 

7.7 

3.0 

3.6 

20.0 

20.9 

8704 

8335 

Y.  T.  Reid,  Salem. 

7.5 

3.0 

3.6 

20.0 

20.5 

Southern  Seed  Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Atlas  rinttnn  Seed  Feed 

8792 

8053 

Edgar  Colen,  New  Albany 

8.9 

3.0 

3.9 

2-0.0 

22.6 

Tennessee  Fiber  Company, 

Memphis,  Tenn. 

Creamo  Brand  Cottonseed  Feed 

4952 

5762 

Star  Mill  Co.,  Huntingburg 

8.0 

4.0 

3.9 

20.0 

20.2 

Creamo  Brand  Cottonseed  Feed.  _.  _ 

4802 

5970 

Michael  Jungles,  Fair  Oaks 

7.5 

4.0 

3.7 

20.0 

21.1 

Creamo  Brand  Cottonseed  Feed 

4952 

6082 

S.  F.  Trembly  Co., 

Columbia  City  _ . 

7.3 

4.0 

35 

20.0 

20.5 

Creamo  Brand  Cottonseed  Feed 

49® 

7707 

Geo.  Niemeyer  & Son,  Dillsboro 

8.2 

4.0 

4.0 

20.0 

21.9 

Creamo  Brand  Cottonseed  Feed  

8495 

8044 

Chas  H.  Porter,  Rensselaer 

8.2 

3.5 

3.7 

20.0 

22.2 

Union  Seed  & Fertilizer  Company, 

West  New  York,  N.  J. 

8653 

7840 

Fisher  Bros.,  Evansville  _ 

7.7 

3 0 

4.3 

20.5 

23.1 

Columbia  Cottonseed  Feed 

8653 

8277 

J.  Jay  Baldwin,  Crown  Point. 

8.5 

3.0 

4.5 

20.5 

22.4 

COTTONSEED  MEAL 

Bartlett  Company,  The  J.  E., 

Jackson,  Mich. 

tfFarmer  Brand  Straight  Cotton  Seed 

Meal  

8064 

5486 

Richard  Hagans,  Greenfield 

5.8 

5.0 

6.6 

36.0 

37.0 

Farmer  Brand  Straight  Cotton  Seed 

Meal172  

8064 

6068 

Hammel  Milling  Co.,  Fremont- 

7.8 

5.0 

5.6 

36.0 

32.4 

tfFarmer  Brand  Straight  Cotton  Seed 

Meal  

8064 

6515 

City  Milling  Co.,  Kendallville.. 

8.2 

5.0 

5.7 

36.0 

36.1 

Branch  Company,  T.  O., 

Little  Rock,  Ark. 

Holstein  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal  and 

Screened  Cotton  Seed  Cake 

8789 

8275 

A.  L.  Cartwright,  Crown  Point 

7.2 

6.0 

6.7 

36.0 

39.7 

Hereford  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

and  Screened  Cotton  Seed  Cake..  _ 

8790 

8321 

Edward  Curtner,  Union  City... 

6.5 

6.0 

6.8 

38.5 

38.7 

Makfat  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal  and 

Screened  Cnttnn  Seed  Cake 

8791 

8340 

C.  O.  Fisher,  Union  City 

6.9 

6.0 

7.1 

41.0 

38.4 

Brode  & Company,  F.  W., 

Memphis,  Tenn. 

Owl  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 173  

4840 

5422 

W.  F.  VanNatta,  Fowler 

7.4 

6.0 

6.4 

41.0 

39.1 

Owl  Brand  Cottonseed  Mea.l 

4840 

5423 

J.  K.  Kirkpatrick,  Fowler  _ 

7.0 

6.0 

6.6 

41.0 

41.3 

Owl  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

4840 

5494 

W.  E.  Lowman,  Mulberry 

6.8 

6.0 

6.7 

41.0 

41.4 

Owl  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  

4840' 

5574 

J.  H.  Wright  & Harry  Dickey, 

Columbus  

7.8 

6.0 

9.6 

41.0 

42.3 

Owl  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

4840 

5595 

Rollin  Rogers  & Edward 

Haines,  Pendleton  

7.7 

6.0 

6.5 

41.0 

41.8 

Owl  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

4840 

5837 

Terre  Haute  Cattle  Co., 

Terre  Haute  

7.0 

6.0 

7.0 

41.0 

42.3 

Owl  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

4840 

6125 

Tuhey  Canning  Co.,  Muncie 

6.9 

6.0 

6.5 

41.0 

41.1 

Owl  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  _ 

4840 

6169 

Wm.  Raff,  Conrad  

7.9 

6.0 

6.0 

41.0 

41.3 

Owl  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  _ 

4840 

6170 

Wm.  Raff,  Conrad 

7.4 

6.0 

6.0 

41.0 

41.3 

Owl  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  

4840 

6186 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Lafayette  

6.3 

6.0 

6.8 

41.0 

42.6 

Owl  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  ... 

4840 

6218 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Lafayette  

6.4 

6.0 

7.4 

41.0 

42.9 

Owl  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

4840 

6827 

Ezra  E.  Rupel,  Briant  

6.9 

6.0 

7.7 

41.0 

41.2 

Owl  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

4840 

6954 

John  Brown  & Son,  Shelby 

5.9 

6.0 

7.0 

41.0 

44.5 

ttOwl  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  

4840 

7984 

Wallace  Milling  Co.,  Dale 

7.6 

6.0 

6.7 

41.0 

41.4 

Owl  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 174 

4840 

7994 

Tapp  & Bridwell,  Bloomington- 

7.0 

6.0 

6.7 

41.0 

38.9 

Owl  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

4840 

8077 

Animal  Husbandry  Dept., 

Purdue  ...  

7.2 

6.0 

6.6 

41.0 

42.3 

Owl  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

4840 

8147 

C.  G.  Hunger,  Madison 

6.6 

6.0 

7.2 

41.0 

42.1 

Dove  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal ... 

4885 

5448 

Barney  Eders  & J.  W.  Linkhart, 

North  Vernon 

6.5 

6.0 

6.5 

38.6 

39.5 

It  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished  173  Refund.  See  page  20 

172  Withdrawn.  Returned  to  mfrs.  Refund.  See  174  15  tons  removed  from  sale.  Relabeled  No. 
page  20  8009.  Refund.  See  page  20 


96 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Brode  & Company,  F.  W., 

Memphis,  Tenn. 

Jay  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal  __ 

7902 

5372 

S.  J.  Carroll,  Logansuort 

6.2 

5.0 

6.6 

36.0 

39.1 

Jay  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

7902 

5466 

Hurst  & Co.,  Indianapolis 

6.2 

5.0 

9.0 

36.0 

36.3 

Jay  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

7902 

5521 

P.  Dorner  & Sons  Co., 

Frankfort  — 

6.6 

5.0 

6.1 

36.0 

38.0 

Jay  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 175 

7902 

6381 

Probst  & Kassebaum, 

Indianapolis  _ 

6.0 

5.0 

7.3 

36.0 

33.9 

Jay  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal176__ 

7902 

6510 

Oen.  Steekley,  Kendallville  . 

8.3 

5.0 

6.5 

36.0 

34  5 

Jay  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal  __ 

7902 

8089' 

Paoli  Milling  Co.,  Paoli 

7.3 

5.0 

6.5 

36.0 

35.1 

Jay  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

7902- 

8177 

C‘.  E.  Bash  & Co.,  Huntington. 

7.2 

5.0 

6.3 

36.0 

33.5 

Dove  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal— _ 

8009 

5379 

Probst  & Kassebaum, 

Indianapolis  - _ . _ 

7.1 

6.0 

6.6 

38.6 

33.9 

8D0Q 

5388 

Chas  H Reynolds  Osgood 

6.7 

6.0 

7.0 

38.6 

39.5 

ffDove  Brand  Cotton  Sepd  Meal 

snoo 

5414 

Wm  P Se.hrock  Decatur 

6.4 

6.0 

6.6 

38.6 

39.8 

Dove  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8009 

5429 

Patrick  Wade  Madison 

6.1 

6.0 

6.2 

38.6 

38.6 

Dove  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal _ 

8009 

5442 

F.  N.  Benton,  Letts  Corner 

6.3 

6.0 

6.7 

38.6 

39.7 

ffDove  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal—  _ _ 

8009 

5449 

Dr.  T.  J.  Martin,  Aurora 

6.6 

6.0 

7.0 

38.6 

40.0 

Dove  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8009 

5621 

Terre  Haute  Cattle  Co., 

Terre  Haute  

6.6 

6.0 

6.9 

38.6 

39.8 

Dove  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8309 

5622 

Terre  Haute  Cattle  Co., 

Terre  Haute  

6.6 

6.0 

6.7 

38.6 

38.9 

Dove  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8009 

5633 

Heldt,  Co.  Fyansville 

6.2 

6.0 

6.9 

38.6 

41.9 

Dove  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8009 

5644 

C'has.  Winslow,  Carthage 

6.1 

6.0 

6.4 

38.6 

38.7 

Dove  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal  . 

8009 

5608 

W.  H.  Small  & Co.,  Evansville. 

6.0 

6.0 

7.1 

38.6 

40.4 

ffDove  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal __ 

8009 

5740 

Albion  Bohnert,  Jasper 

6.5 

6.0 

7.0 

38.6 

41.0 

Dove  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal  _ __ 

8009 

5745 

Cen.  P.  Wagner  .Ta.sper 

6.1 

6.0 

6.5 

38.6 

38.5 

Dove  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 177 

8009 

5962 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis. 

7.5 

6.0 

5.9 

38.6 

37.1 

Dove  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal— 

8009 

6083 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis. 

5.3 

6.0 

6.7 

38.6 

40.2 

Dove  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8009 

6084 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis. 

6.2 

6.0 

6.3 

38.6 

40.3 

Dove  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8009 

6085 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis. 

6.6 

6.0 

6.4 

38.6 

38.4 

Dove  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8009 

6120 

~F>pi ol i Milling’  TPftoli 

7.8 

6.0 

6.0 

38.6 

38.4 

Dove  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal — 

8009 

6122 

M.  T,.  Miers  Burney 

7.2 

6.0 

6.8 

38.6 

38.7 

Dove  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8009 

6131 

W B.  Crane  Rusbville 

7.0 

6.0 

6.9 

38.6 

40.4 

Dove  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal __ 

8009 

6132 

John  B.  F'razee,  Rushville 

6.2 

6.0 

10.3 

38.6 

44.7 

Dove  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8009 

6176 

Suckow  & Co.  & Valentine  & 

Valentine,  Franklin  ... 

6.1 

6.0 

7.0 

38.6 

39.6 

Dove  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8009 

6191 

Bora.m  &■,  Fifield  TTebrnn 

6.0 

6.0 

6.7 

38.6 

38.8 

Dove  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8009 

6743 

MeCoy  Bros  Liherty 

6.0 

6.0 

7.6 

38.6 

39.2 

Dove  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal  

8009 

8170 

H.  C.  JessuD,  Madison 

6.2 

6.0 

7.0 

38.6 

41.1 

Dove  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 178 

8009 

8200 

A.  H.  Hilands,  Madison 

6.8 

6^0 

6.9 

38.6 

38.2 

Dove  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8009' 

8202 

T^rnpst.  Smith  Mftflisfm 

6.8 

6.0 

6.9 

38.6 

38.2 

Dove  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8009 

8208 

Ed.  & Geo.  Schuman,  Madison. 

6.5 

6.0 

6.9 

38.6 

40  3 

Dove  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8009 

8326 

Fisher  Fisher  Nabb 

6.4 

6.0 

6.9 

38.6 

38.7 

ffDove  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal _ 

8009 

8351 

R.  V.  Snepp,  Lebanon 

7.2 

6.0 

7.0 

38.6 

39.1 

Dove  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8009 

8364 

Marengo  Milling  Co.,  Marengo. 

6.5 

6.0 

6.7 

38.6 

39.3 

Buckeye  Cotton  Oil  Company,  The, 

Cincinnati,  Ohio 

“Buckeye”  Prime  Cottonseed  Meal 

5534 

5789 

Orabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Burnett  Company,  The  William  A., 

LaFayette  .... 

4.8 

6.0 

6.4 

38.6 

37.9 

Louisville,  Ky. 

Burnett’s  Prime  Cotton  Seed  Meal  179_ 

7160 

7877 

J.  M.  Hornung  & Sons, 

Greensburg  ...  ...  ...  ... 

7.2 

6.0 

6.5 

38.6 

36.7 

Burnett’s  Prime  Cotton  Seed  Meal  180_ 

7160 

8324 

Huffstetter  & Gray,  Nabb. 

6.8 

6.0 

6.1 

38.6 

36.2 

Burnett’s  Prime  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

7160 

8325 

Huffstetter  & Gray,  Nabb  — 

6.9 

6.0 

5.9 

38.6 

38.1 

Burnett’s  Prime  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

7160 

8391 

J.  & S.  Emison  & Co.,  Vincennes 

6.5 

6.0 

8.2 

38.6 

38.6 

Campbell  & Company,  0.  L., 

Little  Rock,  Ark. 

Double  Hump  Camel  Brand  Cotton 

Seed  Meal  l80a  

7937 

8357 

Farmer’s  Exchange,  Mulberry.. 

7.4 

6.0 

7.6 

41.0 

40  3 

Single  Hump  Camel  Brand  Cotton 

Seed  Meal 

8031 

5345 

.Tay  Crain  Co  , Mnlherry 

6.2 

6.0 

6.7 

38.5 

39.8 

Single  Hump  Camel  Brand  Cotton 

Seed  Meal  . „ 

8031 

5463 

Marshall  & O’Hair,  Greencastle 

53 

6.0 

7.1 

38.5 

39.3 

tt  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished  177  2 tons  removed  from  sale 

176  14  0/lo  tons  removed  from  sale  178  Composited  with  D8202 

176  2 tons  removed  from  sale.  Refund.  See  page  179  Refund.  See  page  20 

20.  Returned  to  mfgs.  180  For  consumer’s  own  use.  Refund.  See  page  20 

18011  Refund.  See  page  20 


97 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

j Found 

Campbell  & Company,  C.  L., 

Little  Rock,  Ark. 

Single  Hump  Camel  Brand  Cotton 

Seed  Meal __  

8031 

6119 

.Tay  Grain  C,n .,  Mulberry 

5.5 

6.0 

6.4 

38.5 

38.6 

Baby  Camel  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal- 

8144 

5893 

Goodrich  Bros.  Hay  & Grain 

tfBaby  Camel  Brand  Cotton  Seed 

Co.,  Winchester  _ 

6.4 

6.0 

7.4 

36.0 

35.7 

Meal 181  

8144 

7025 

Berry  Bros.,  Lynn 

8.0 

6.0 

6.7 

36.0 

33.9 

Chicago  Heights  Oil  M’f’g.  Company, 

Chicago,  111. 

“Prize”  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

8000 

5984 

Wm.  Kessler,  Morocco 

7.6 

6.0 

6.4 

38.5 

37.7 

Choctaw  Sales  Company, 

Kansas  City,  Mo. 

“Choctaw  Quality”  Cottonseed  Meal 

and  Cake  __  . _ - 

7176 

5973; 

J.  J.  Lawler,  Rensselaer 

7.2 

6.0 

6.3 

43.0 

44.6 

“Choctaw  Quality”  Cottonseed  Meal 

and  Cake  ___  . _ _ 

7176 

5978 

Thos.  Lang,  Rensselaer 

6.0 

6.0 

7.1 

43.0 

44.3 

“Choctaw  Quality”  Cottonseed  Meal 

and  Cake  182  _ - 

7176 

6057 

tL  Brown  & Son,  Shelby 

5.3 

6.0 

7.3 

43.0 

40.1 

“Choctaw  Quality”  Cottonseed  Meal 

and  Cake  __  

7176 

6105 

J.  J.  Lawler,  Rensselaer 

7.3 

6.0 

6.0 

43.0 

44.2 

“Choctaw  Quality”  Cottonseed  Meal 

and  Cake  _ __  _ ___ 

7176 

6100 

J.  J.  Lawler,  Pair  Oaks 

6.0 

6.0 

8.3 

43.0 

44.2 

Choctaw  Standard  Cottonseed  Meal 

and  Cake  183  ___  

7177 

5501 

Edw.  J.  Randle,  Moody 

6.8 

6.0 

5.7 

41.0 

39.0 

Choctaw  Standard  Cottonseed  Meal 

and  Cake _ 

7177 

5682 

D L.  Trout,,  T,pe 

6.1 

6.0 

7.2 

41.0 

41.3 

Choctaw  Standard  Cottonseed  Meal 

and  Cake  ___  _ _ 

7177 

6014 

Geo.  W.  Hinkle,  New  Ross 

5.4 

6.0 

8.7 

41.0 

40  6 

Choctaw  Standard  Cottonseed  Meal 

and  Cake  ___  

7177 

6180 

D.  L.  Trout,  Lee 

6.6 

6.0 

7.3 

41.0 

42.0 

Choctaw  Prime  Cottonseed  Meal  and 

Cake 

8159 

5508 

•T.  S.  Minch,  Chalmers 

5.8 

5.0 

5.7 

38.5 

39.4 

Cottonseed  Products  Company,  The, 

Louisville,  Ky. 

Good  Cottonseed  Meal 184 

7981 

7988 

Charlestown  Milling  Co., 

Charlestown  __  _ 

8.3 

6.0 

6.6 

36.0 

34.7 

Good  Cottonseed  Meal 

7981 

8033 

New  Albany  Milling  Co., 

New  Albany 

7.4 

6.0 

7.0 

36.0 

37.5 

Good  Cottonseed  Meal 185 

7981 

8041 

John  H.  Shine  & Co., 

New  Albany  ___  - 

6.7 

6.0 

6.7 

36.0 

35.2 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Company, 

Lafayette,  Ind. 

Crescent  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

2765 

6141 

Manufacturers  

5.2 

7.5 

7.3 

41.0 

47.2 

ft  Crescent  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal_ 

2765 

7851 

Manufacturers  _ 

6.0 

7.5 

8.0 

41.0 

43.9 

ttCrescent  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

2765 

8076 

Homer  Dresbach  & Ernest 

Stotton,  Chalmers 

6.3 

7.5 

7.8 

41.0 

44.4 

Davis,  S.  P.,  Little  Rock,  Ark. 

Good  Luck  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal... 

6671 

5424 

M.  S.  Strawn,  Scircleville 

7.1 

6.0 

6.7 

41.0 

42.1 

Good  Luck  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

0671 

5643 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Crawfordsville  _ 

6.6 

6.0 

7.0 

41.0 

44.6 

Good  Luck  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

0671 

5645 

Thomas  Wilkins,  Linden  

5.9 

6.0 

6.7 

41.0 

42.5 

Good  Luck  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal— 

6671 

6019 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Crawfordsville  

6.1 

6.0 

7.0 

41.0 

41.9 

Good  Luck  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

6671 

6110 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Crawfordsville  

5.9 

6.0 

7.1 

41.0 

43.8 

Good  Luck  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

0071 

6159 

Majestic  Distillery,  Terre  Haute. 

7.0 

6.0 

6.8 

41.0 

41.8 

Veribest  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

74321 

5580 

Klondike  Milling  Co.,  Danville.. 

6.3 

6.0 

6.5 

38.5 

38.7 

Veribest  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7482 

5764 

The  Farmers  Mill,  Huntingburg 

6.6 

6.0 

5.7 

38.5 

38.7 

Veribest  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  186___ 

7432 

5974 

Suckow  Co.,  Franklin 

5.0 

6.0 

5.8 

38.5 

37.4 

tfBeauty  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  and 

Cracked  Screened  Cake 

8152 

5498 

Sam  Leni,  Marion 

6.4 

6.0 

6.8 

36.0 

35.5 

Beauty  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  and 

Cracked  Screened  Cake 

1 8152 

8134 

W.  E.  Griner  & Son,  Middlebury 

6.2 

6.0 

6.7 

36.0 

37.6 

- See  page  20 

11  400  lbs.  removed  from  sale.  Refund.  See  page  184  19  tons  removed  from  sale. 

20  See  page  20 

1 2 Refund.  See  page  20  185  Refund.  See  page  20 

186  Refund.  See  page  20 


Relabeled.  Refund. 


98 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Is 

o 

JE 

o 

c 

_o 

u 

aM 

CD 

c 

1% 

O § 

73 

g 

A* 

gS 

O CS 

C 

1 

Davis,  S.  P.,  Little  Rock,  Ark. 

' 

Good  Luck  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

and  Cracked  Screened  Cake 

8438 

6153 

Ora  L.  Loveless,  Clarks  Hill 

6.2 

6.0 

7.0 

41.0 

43.7 

Good  Luck  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

8438 

8266 

H.  C.  Vestal,  Montezuma  __  __ _ 

6.3 

6.0 

8.2 

41.0 

40.5 

East  St.  Louis  Oil  Company, 

National  Stock  Yards,  111. 

East  St.  Louis  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

6258 

5086 

L.  E.  Simpson,  Vincennes 

6.2 

6.0 

6.1 

38.5 

41.9 

East  St.  Louis  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

6258 

6010 

Goshen  Milling  Co.,  Goshen  ___ 

6.3 

6.0 

6.3 

38.5 

41.3 

East  St.  Louis  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

6298 

6520 

Goshen  Milling  Co.,  Goshen 

7.8 

6.0 

5.7 

38.5 

33.0 

East  St.  Louis  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

6258 

7216 

J.  W.  Emison,  Bruceville 

7.9 

6.0' 

5.9 

38.5 

39.8 

East  St.  Louis  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

6268 

8015 

Salem  Co-operative  Assoc., 

tfEast  St.  Louis  Brand  Cotton  Seed 

Salem  

7.2 

6.0 

6.2 

38.5 

39.0 

MeaU87 

6258 

8138 

Walter  Scranage,  Goshen 

6.7 

6.0 

6.6 

38.5 

38.0 

East  St.  Louis  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

6258 

8139 

J.  J.  Zollinger,  Goshen 

6.7 

6.0 

6.6 

38.5 

38.0 

East  St.  Louis  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

6258 

8361 

Tower  & Merriman,  Marengo 

6.3 

6.0 

6.9 

38.5 

39.7 

ttlllinois  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

7091 

7771 

J.  J.  Lawler,  Fair  Oaks 

7.1 

6.0 

6.1 

41.0 

40.5 

tflllinois  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

7091 

7772 

J.  J.  Lawler,  Pleasant  Ridge 

6.7 

6.0 

6.3 

41.0 

41.6 

St.  Clair  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8859 

8312 

J.  M.  Hammond,  Milltown  _ 

6.9 

5.0 

6.3 

36.0 

36.4 

ffSt,  rilair  Brand  Clntton  Sped  Meal 

8859 

8393 

L.  C.  Simpson,  Vincennes 

6.3 

5.0 

5.9 

36.0 

37.7 

Eberts,  H.  F.  H.,  Little  Rock,  Ark. 

Milko  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7428 

5491 

Vincennes  Feed  & Produce  Co., 

Vincennes  

6.7 

5.5 

6.5 

38.6 

40.1 

Milko  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 188 

7428 

5573 

Silas  Y.  Hardwick,  Danville 

8.1 

5.5 

5.9 

38.6 

36.5 

Milko  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7428 

5703 

Roth  Bros.,  Rensselaer  

4.4 

5.5 

6.6 

38.6 

39.2 

ffMilkn  Brand  Cnt.tnnsepd  Mpa.l 

7428 

5718 

E.  A.  Kitchel,  Kitchel 

7.4 

5.5 

6.7 

38.6 

40.1 

Milko  Brand  Cotton sppd  Mpal 

7428 

5719 

E.  A.  Kitchel,  Kitchel 

6.1 

5.5 

5.9 

38.6 

38.3 

Milko  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7428 

5739 

(1)  Suckow  Co.,  Franklin 

6.7 

5.5 

6.1 

38.6 

42.0 

Milko  Brand  rSottonseed  Meal 

7428 

5739 

(2)  Suckow  Co.,  Franklin .. 

6.7 

5.5 

6.1 

38.6 

42.0 

Milko  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7428 

5758 

Ira  L.  Pritchard,  Edinburg  . ___ 

8.0 

5.5 

6.2 

38.6 

38.7 

tfMilko  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7428 

5787 

J.  B.  Harrell  & Son,  Fairland-- 

7.0 

5.5 

6.7 

38.6 

40.4 

Milko  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7428 

5829 

Valentine  & Valentine,  Franklin 

6.2 

5.5 

6.5 

38.6 

40.4 

tfMilko  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7428 

5830 

Trafalgar  Grain  Co.,  Trafalgar 

7.5 

5.5 

6.7 

38.6 

40.1 

Milko  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  

7428 

5832 

Valentine  & Valentine,  Franklin 

7.6 

5.5 

6.2 

38.6 

39.6 

Milko  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  

7428 

5964 

Hurst  & Co.,  Indianapolis 

6.4 

5.5 

6.4 

38.6 

39.3 

Milko  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 189  _ . 

7428 

5965 

Hurst  & Co.,  Indianapolis 

8.9 

5.5 

6.5 

38.6 

37.3 

Milko  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7428 

5971 

Ed.  Myers,  Danville 

6.0 

5.5 

6.5 

38.6 

40.1 

tfMilko  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7428 

5972 

Valentine  & Valentine,  Franklin 

7.0 

5.5 

6.2 

38.6 

39.5 

tfMilko  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7428 

6021 

Jos.  H.  Mullendore,  Franklin 

5.8 

5.5 

6.2 

38.6 

38.0 

Milko  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  

7428 

6078 

Hurst  & Co.,  Indianapolis 

7.0 

5.5 

6.3 

38.6 

37.7 

Milko  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7428 

6123 

Chas.  Gartin,  Burney 

7.9 

5.5 

7.0 

38.6 

41.8 

tfMilko  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7428 

6136 

A.  J.  Mable,  Connersville 

7.2 

5.5 

6.4 

38.6 

38.4 

Milko  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7428 

6487 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis. 

8.0 

5.5 

6.9 

38.6 

40.0 

Milko  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7428 

7346 

Indiana  Seed  Co.,  Indianapolis. 

7.5 

5.5 

7.0 

38.6 

38.2 

Bossy  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8133 

6012 

Lingeman,  Adams  & Co., 

Brownsburg  

5.9 

5.0 

6.8 

36.0 

38.5 

Bossy  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8133 

6121 

W.  S.  Smiley,  Burney 

8.4 

5.0 

6.7 

36.0 

37.4 

Edinger  & Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

E-Co  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8053 

5875 

Scottsburg  Milling  Co., 

Scottsburg  

7.9 

6.0 

7.0 

36.0 

36.4 

E-Co  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8053 

6300 

Pickens  & Brengle,  Orleans 

5.5 

6.0 

6.4 

36.0 

37.7 

E-Co  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8053 

6732 

Salem  Co-operative  Assoc., 

Salem  

6.6 

6.0 

6.3 

36.0 

37.0 

E-Co  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

S053 

8109 

Orleans  Mill  & Elevator  Co., 

Orleans  

6.7 

6.0 

6.2 

36.0 

33.8 

Eldred  Mill  Company,  Jackson,  Mich. 

Gusto  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8125 

5717 

Omer  G.  Whelan , Richmond 

5.2 

5.0 

7.1 

36.0 

36.0 

Feeders  Supply  Company, 

Kansas  City,  Mo. 

tt“Equity  Brand”  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

6167 

6103 

J.  J.  Lawler,  Pleasant  Ridge 

6.1 

6.0 

7.4 

41.0 

43.6 

“Equity  Brand”  Red  Tag  Cotton 

Seed  Meal  and  Cake 

7690 

5678' 

W.  H.  Webb,  Inglefield 

6.3 

5.0 

7.5 

38.6 

39.0 

Goodrich  Bros.  Hay  & Grain  Company, 

Winchester,  Ind. 

Magic  Cottonseed  Meal 

7317 

6195 

Manufacturers  

7.7 

6.0 

8.5 

36.0 

38.3 

ft  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished  188  Refund.  See  page  20 

Composited  with  D8139  189  Between  4 and  5 tons  removed  from  sale 


99 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

1 

Guar- 

anteed 

TJ 

G 

g 

Gronauer  & Company,  Gus, 

Memphis,  Tenn. 

“Daisy  Brand”  Cottonseed  Meal___ 

7966 

5687 

Frank  Adams,  Montezuma 

5.0 

6.0 

7.2 

38.6 

40.1 

Hayes  Grain  & Commission  Company, 

Little  Rock,  Ark. 

Arkansaw  Brand  Cotton  Seed  MeaL_. 

8825 

7993 

Bloomington  Milling  Co., 

Bloomington  .... 

7.1 

5.0 

6.6 

36.0 

36.0 

Hopkins  Fertilizer  Company, 

New  Albany,  Tnd. 

Cotton  Seed  Meal _ 

8458 

6275 

New  Albany  Milling  Co., 

New  Albany  _ 

8.8 

5.0 

7.1 

36.0 

37.1 

Cotton  Seed  Meal  

8450 

6276 

John  H.  Shine  & Co., 

New  Albany 

9.5 

5.0 

7.2 

36.0 

37.2 

8450 

6731 

O T,  Oanhlc,  Pekin 

8.5 

5.0 

7.3 

36.0 

36.3 

Humphreys,  Godwin  Company, 

Memphis,  Tenn. 

Dixie  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  

5064 

5552 

Robert  Bailey,  Wabash 

6.4 

6.0 

6.2 

41.0 

41.8 

5064 

6112 

H.  E.  Pitman,  Bedford 

8.1 

6.0 

7.0 

41.0 

40.4 

5064 

6113 

Miles  Standish,  Bedford 

7.5 

6.0 

6.5 

41.0 

40.4 

Forfat  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7116 

5381 

Indiana  Seed  Co.,  Indianapolis. 

5.3 

6.0 

7.1 

38.5 

38.4 

Forfat  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7116 

5382 

Indiana  Seed  Co.,  Indianapolis. 

5.7 

6.0 

7.1 

38.5 

38.8 

Forfat  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7116 

5383 

Indiana  Seed  Co.,  Indianapolis. 

5.4 

6.0 

6.7 

38.5 

38.5 

Forfat  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7116 

5415 

Judson  Creamery  & Produce 

Co.,  North  Judson  

6.5 

6.0 

7.3 

38.5 

39.3 

Forfat  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  

7110 

5417 

Judson  Creamery  & Produce 

Co.,  North  Judson  ._.  

6.6 

6.0 

7.2 

38.5 

38.5 

Forfat  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal _ 

7116 

5520 

S.  A.  Bryan  & H.  R.  Smith, 

Rossville  ._  ...  

6.3 

6.0 

7.2 

38.5 

38.5 

Forfat  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 190 

7116 

5522 

Willard  Milner,  Frankfort 

7.0 

6.0 

6.0 

38.5 

37.7 

Forfat  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7116 

5524 

J.  H.  Harper,  Sharpsville 

6.0 

6.0 

7.0 

38.5 

41.8 

Forfat  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal _ 

7116 

5525 

J.  H.  Harper,  Sharpsville 

5.8 

6.0 

7.4 

38.5 

41.0 

Forfat  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7110 

5588 

J.  H.  Leonard,  Sullivan 

6.5 

6.0 

6.8 

38.5 

38.7 

Forfat  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 191 

7116 

5594 

G.  W.  Robbins  & John  F.  Allen, 

Sullivan  

6.8 

6.0 

6.7 

38.5 

37.7 

Forfat  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  

7116 

5749 

Farmers  Supply  Co.,  Spencer 

5.4 

6.0 

7.0 

38.5 

38.9 

Forfat  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  

7110 

6001 

Davis  Grain  Co..  Clarks  Hill 

7.3 

6.0 

7.1 

38.5 

39.0 

Forfat  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7110 

6050 

J.  E.  Remley  & Son, 

Waynetown  

6.7 

6.0 

7.0 

38.5 

38.6 

Forfat  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7116 

6489 

Hurst  & Co.,  Indianapolis 

8.1 

6.0 

8.1 

38.5 

39.6 

Forfat  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7116 

7116 

Hurst  & Co.,  Columbus 

7.8 

6.0 

7.7 

38  5 

40.5 

Forfat  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  

7110 

8212 

Orabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Lafayette  

5.4 

6.0 

7.6 

38.5 

40.0 

Danish  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7178 

5592 

Omer  G.  Whelan,  Richmond 

7.1 

5.0 

6.5 

36.0 

36.5 

Danish  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7178 

7813 

The  Heldt  Co.,  Evansville 

6.4 

5.0 

6.1 

36.0 

36.5 

Imperial  Cotto  Milling  Company,  The, 

Chicago,  111. 

Imperial  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  192__ 

7307 

5390 

W.  P.  Neel,  Holton 

7.3 

5.5 

6.5 

36.0 

35.5 

Imperial  Cotto  Sales  Company, 

Chicago,  111. 

ttlmperial  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

8091 

5502 

R.  B.  Tolin,  Fair  Oaks _ 

6.8 

5.0 

7.6 

36.0 

36.2 

ttlmperial  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

8091 

5505 

Hartman  & Dotterer,  Bluffton. 

6.5 

5.0 

6.5 

36.0 

38.3 

ttlmperial  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

8091 

5968 

H.  G.  Hillis,  Fair  Oaks 

6.9 

5.0 

8.3 

36.0 

35.1 

ttlmperial  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

8091 

6104 

J.  J.  Totten  & Son,  Flat  Rock.. 

7.5 

5.0 

7.9 

36.0 

37.5 

Imperial  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

8091 

6209 

H.  A.  Stewart,  Hope 

7.3 

5.0 

7.8 

36.0 

37.5 

ttlmperial  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

8091 

8122 

H.  O.  Greene,  Goshen 

6.8 

5.0 

5.2 

36.0 

35.8 

ttlmperial  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

8091 

8123 

E.  D.  Logan,  Goshen 

6.7 

5.0 

5.5 

36.0 

36.0 

ttlmperial  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

8091 

8124 

Bert  Stutsman,  Goshen  

6.6 

5.0 

5.3 

36.0 

35.9 

Imperial  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

8091 

8278 

J.  Jay  Baldwin,  Crown  Point... 

6.7 

5.0 

7.1 

36.0 

36.3 

Imperial  Cotto  Brand  Choice  Cotton- 

seed Meal  __  ___  ... 

8092 

8377 

fins  Weyle,  Ecnnnmy 

6.5 

6.0 

6.5 

41.0 

41.3 

ttlmperial  Cotto  Brand  Choice  Cotton- 

seed Meal . _ 

8092 

8378 

Frank  O.  Cain  Economy 

6.6 

6.0 

6.4 

41.0 

42.6 

Imperial  Cotto  Brand  Prime  Cotton- 

seed Meal  . ...  ._ 

8093 

5509 

C.  W.  Brackney,  Brookston 

5.9 

5.0 

7.5 

38.5 

39.9 

* Not  tagged  i»i  Refund.  See  page  20 

tl  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished  1024  tons  removed  from  sale.  Refund.  See  page  20 

190  Refund.  See  page  20 


100 


TABLE  IV.— Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

[3 

‘3 

se 

o 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

j Found 

Imperial  Ootto  Sales  Company, 

Chicago,  111. 

tflmperial  Ootto  Brand  Prime  Cotton- 

seed  Meal  _ 

8093 

5995 

John  W.  Johnson,  Goodland 

6.7 

5.0 

6.0 

38.5 

40.1 

Imperial  Cotto  Brand  Prime  Cotton- 

seed  Meal 

8093 

6126 

Arthur  Cecil  & Sons,  Muncie 

6.4 

5.0 

7.3 

38.5 

39.4 

Imperial  Ootto  Brand  Prime  Cotton- 

seed  Meal _ 

8093 

6127 

Arthur  Cecil  & Sons,  Selma 

6.5 

5.0 

7.6 

3S.5 

38.5 

Imperial  Cotto  Brand  Prime  Cotton- 

seed  Meal  ___  

8093 

8355 

John  E.  Wilson,  Wingate 

7.4 

5.0 

6.7 

38.5 

39.6 

Imperial  Cotto  Brand  Extra  Choice 

8401 

8042 

A.  T.  Brown,  Mnnnn 

7.2 

8.5 

8.1 

43.0 

47.0 

Imperial  Cotto  Brand  Extra  Choice 

8401 

8043 

,T  C.  Brown,  Mon  on 

7.0 

8.5 

7.4 

43.0 

47.7 

tflmperial  Cotto  Brand  Extra  Choice 

8401 

8047 

W,  N,  Mopply,  Frfvnep<?yil]e 

7.1 

8.5 

7.7 

43.0 

47.1 

imperial  Cotto  Brand  Choice  Cotton- 

W.  H.  "Darlington,  La.porte 

5.6 

7.8 

43.5 

imperial  Cotto  Brand  Choice  Cotton- 

seed  Meal  _ _ _ _ _ _ 

5967 

W.  H.  Darlington,  Laporte 

6.5 

10.0 

43  5 

^Imperial  Cotto  Brand  Choice  Cotton- 

J.  J.  Lawler,  Fair  Oaks 

6.8 

6 5 

41.0 

*nnttnnsped  Meal 

8046 

Horton  Sr,  Heltzel,  Lee  

7.0 

7.4 

47.3 

Johnson  & Company,  W.  B., 

Memphis,  Tenn. 

Imperial  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

6031 

5564 

Farmers  Elevator  Co.,  Kempton 

6.3 

6.0 

8.6 

38.0 

40.7 

Imperial  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

6931 

5648 

National  Military  Home, 

Marlon  

5.5 

6.0 

7.8 

38.0 

39.6 

Imperial  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

6931 

5652 

John  Doty  Marion 

6.6 

6.0 

6.7 

38.0 

38.8 

Jordan,  Geo.  M.,  Vincennes,  Ind. 

Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8861 

8384 

0.  L.  Barr  Grain  Co.,  BicknelL. 

6.8 

6.0 

6.7 

37.0 

36  2 

Lanier  Bros.,  Nashville,  Tenn. 

Canary  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

5538 

8879 

G.  & H.  W althers  Co., 

1 

Brookville  

6.9 

6.0 

8.3 

41.0 

41.2 

Lovitt  & Company,  L.  B., 

Memphis,  Tenn. 

Memphis  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  __ _ . 

8849 

5385 

Wm  Rouse  ■&  Son,  Indianapolis 

6.8 

6.0 

7.3 

38.6 

39.6 

Memphis  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  

6849 

5428 

W.  0.  Robinson,  Galveston 

6.9 

6.0 

5.9 

38.6 

38  0 

Memphis  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  _ 

6849 

5570 

J.  S.  Crawford,  Crown  Point___ 

7.6 

6.0 

6.2 

38.6 

1 38.7 

Memphis  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  __  - 

6849 

5571 

J.  S.  Crawford,  Crown  Point— 

7.8 

6.0 

6. *2 

38.6 

: 39.6 

Memphis  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

6849 

5572 

Wm.  Steeb,  Crown  Point 

7.1 

6.0 

6.3 

38.6 

41.7 

Memphis  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  

6849 

5620 

Wm.  Lamb,  Petersburg 

6.3 

6.0 

7.0 

38.6 

37.8 

Memphis  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

6849 

5793 

(1)  Boonville  Milling  Co., 

Boonville  _ 

6.5 

6.0 

6.6 

38.6 

388 

tfMemphis  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

6849 

5793 

(2)  Bert  Hart,  Boonville 

6.6 

6.0 

6.4 

38.6 

39.0 

Memphis  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

0849 

5990 

T.  S.  Nugen,  Lewisville  _ 

7.6 

6.0 

6.4 

38.6 

40.2 

Memphis  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  193_. 

0849 

6077 

Wm.  Rouse*  & Son,  Indianapolis 

6.4 

6.0 

6.6 

38.6 

37.1 

tfMemphis  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

6849 

6092 

Hollett-Winders  Grain  Co., 

Arcadia  __  __  

7.4 

6.0 

6.9 

38.6 

41.3 

tfMemphis  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  _ _ 

6849 

6093 

Hollett-Winders  Grain  Co., 

Arcadia  

6.6 

6.0 

7.2 

38.6 

33.7 

Memphis  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

6849 

6840 

Ohio  Valley  Seed  Co.,  Evansville 

5.5 

6.0 

6.8 

38.6 

38.7 

Memphis  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

6849 

7924 

Haynes  Milling  Co.,  Portland— 

8.1 

6.0 

7.8 

38.6 

39.9 

Memphis  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  

6849 

8165 

G.  J.  Roth,  Boonville 

7.6 

6.0 

6.9 

3S.6 

39.4 

^Memphis  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 



5593 

E.  A.  Kitchel,  Kitchel 

7.5 

_ 

7.1 

_ 

35.1 

ttLovit  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 194 

7460 

8145 

C.  F.  Cattron,  Westville 

6.4 

6.5 

7.1 

41.0 

39.7 

Cotton  Seed  Meal 

7580 

8205 

Fish pr  Bros  , Fyansyillp 

5.9 

5.0 

6 8 

35.0 

37.1 

Macdonald,  J.  M.,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 

Kineda  Prime  Cottonseed  Meal 

6761 

5623 

Terre  Haute  Cattle  Co., 

Terre  Haute — . 

7.3 

6.0 

6.0 

38.6 

39.4 

Kineda  Prime  Cottonseed  Meal 195 

0761 

5696 

Terre  Haute  Cattle  Co., 

Terre  Haute  

5.8 

6.0 

5.9 

38.6 

37.1 

Kineda  Prime  Cottonseed  Meal 

6701 

5889 

L.  A.  Botkin,  Parker  City 

7.5 

6.0 

6.1 

38.6  | 

39.7 

Kineda  Prime  Cottonseed  Meal 

6761 

5890  1 

H.  W.  Meeks,  Parker  City 

6.2 

6.0 

5.9 

38.6  1 

40.4 

* Not  tagged 

194  6 tons  removed  from  sale. 

Refund. 

See 

page  20 

f t Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished  195  Refund.  See  page  20 

193  12y2  tons  removed  from  sale.  Refund.  See 
page  20 


IOI 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Macdonald,  J.  M.,  Cincinnati,  Ohio 

0761 

0105 

T,  A BntVin,  Parker 

8.5 

6.0 

6.0 

38.6 

38.2 

Kineda  Prime  Cottonseed  Meal 196 

6761 

7876 

Sandusky  Farmers  Elevator 

Co.,  Sandusky  

8.2 

6.0 

8.7 

38.6 

35.7 

Avon  Cottonseed  Meal  - 

7973 

57521 

Charlestown  Milling  Co., 

Charlestown  _ 

5.7 

5.0 

7.4 

36.0 

37.7 

Avon  Cottonseed  Meal 197 

7973 

5788 

New  Albany  Milling  Co., 

New  Albany  

6.6 

5.0 

7.9 

36.0 

35.0 

Avon  Cottonseed  Meal 

7973 

6024 

John  H.  Shine  & Co., 

New  Albany  

6.2 

5.0 

6.0 

36.0 

37.4 

Montgomery  & Company,  C.  L., 

Memphis,  Tenn. 

Eagle  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal  

8239 

5598 

J.  LI.  Leonard,  Merom 

7.2 

6.0 

7.9 

38.6 

39.5 

Eagle  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8239 

5604 

J.  & S.  Emison  & Co., 

Vincennes  

6.3 

6.0 

6.9 

38.6 

37.8 

Eagle  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8239 

5714 

Stiefel  fr.  Levy,  Avilla, 

7.1 

6.0 

7.4 

38.6 

39.4 

8239 

C.  G.  Hunger,  Madison  

7.1 

6.0 

6 8 

38.6 

38.9 

Eagle  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 198 

8239 

6040 

Hartman  & Dotterer,  Bluffton. 

6!5 

6^0 

5.5 

38.6 

37.6 

Eagle  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8289 

6152 

John  S.  Waters,  Fort  Wayne.— 

7.7 

6.0 

7.4 

38.6 

38.9 

Eagle  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8239 

6470 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis. 

7.3 

6.0 

8.2 

38.6 

41.4 

Eagle  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal  

8239 

6644 

Prater-Mottier  Co.,  Terre  Haute 

5.4 

6.0 

6.1 

38.6 

39.8 

Eagle  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 199 

8239 

7460 

O.  L.  Cauble,  Salem 

6.3 

6.0 

6.9 

38.6 

37.6 

tfStar  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal  200 

8315 

5750 

M.  A-  Conroy,  Jeffersonville 

7.4 

6.0 

6.0 

36.0 

34.7 

Star  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal  201___  _ 

8315 

6140 

G.  W.  Ruff  & Son,  New  Castle.. 

7.2 

6.0 

5.5 

36.0 

34.4 

Star  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8815 

6847 

Ohio  Valley  Seed  Co.,  Evansville 

6.8 

6.0 

7.7 

36.0 

37.5 

Star  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8315 

7989 

W.  R.  McClanahan,  Otisco 

6.6 

6.0 

7.1 

36.0 

41.0 

Star  Brand  Cntton  Seed  Meal 

8315 

8300 

Bhy  Bros  J Wakarnsa. 

7.1 

6.0 

9.6 

36.0 

36.2 

Star  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal  202 - 

8315 

8301 

Meryin  Fby,  Wakarnsa 

7.1 

6.0 

9.6 

36.0 

36.2 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Pri'rr|P  flntfrin  8ppd  Menl 

8753 

7699 

Manufacturers 

7.8 

6.0 

7.0 

38.5 

38.3 

National  Feed  Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Prime  Cotton  Seed  Meal  

7934 

5673 

Goshen  Milling  Co.,  Goshen.  _ _ 

6.7 

6.5 

6.5 

38.5 

39.9 

Primp  rinttnn  Spprl  MprI 

7934 

5991 

T.  S'.  Nugen,  Lewisville 

6.6 

6.5 

7.3 

38.5 

39.7 

Prime  Cotton  Seed  Meal  

7934 

6181 

.T,  Rrnwn  Xr,  Son,  Shelby 

7.1 

6.5 

5^7 

38.5 

41.2 

Prime  Cotton  Seed  Meal  

7934 

6192 

O.  G.  Fifield,  Hebron  

7.2 

6.5 

5 3 

38.5 

40.7 

Primp  rintt.nn  Sppd  Meal 

7934 

6252 

T.  S.  Nugen,  Lewisville 

6.3 

6.5 

7.6 

38.5 

39.9 

Primp  dnttnp  Sppd  Mpal  203 

7934 

7933 

TTawlpy  TTall  Lewisville 

6.9 

6.5 

G*  5 

38.5 

37.6 

Primp  rinttnn  Sppd  Mpal 

8788 

7932 

T S Nngen,  Lewisville 

6.6 

6.0 

8^3 

38.5 

39.9 

Prime  Cotton  Seed  Meal  _ 

8788 

8117 

Crabbs  Reynolds  Taylor  Co., 

Lafayette  

6.7 

6.0 

7.3 

38.5 

40.0 

National  rinttnn  Sppd  Meal 

8860 

'8276 

W™  Steeh,  Hrnwn  Point 

6.2 

5.0 

7.9 

36.0 

36.7 

Nothem,  W.  C.,  Little  Rock,  Ark. 

Standard  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8198 

5610 

Kraus  & Apfelbaum, 

Fort  Wayne 

7.3 

6.0 

6.1 

36.0 

35.9 

Standard  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8198 

6148 

Kraus  & Apfelbaum, 

Fort  Wayne 

6.8 

6.0 

6.2 

36.0 

36.7 

Pincoffs  Company,  Maurice, 

Chicago,  111. 

Pinco  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  

8734 

8049 

Kraus  & Apfelbaum, 

Fort  Wayne  

6.1 

6.0 

5.4 

36.0 

36.4 

Poe  Cottonseed  Products  Company, 

Memphis,  Tenn. 

“Golden  Rod”  Brand  A Good  Cotton- 

seed Meal  __  

8294 

7076 

J.  W.  Linkhart  & Son, 

“Golden  Rod”  Brand  A Good  Cotton- 

North Vernon  _ 

6.1 

5.0 

6.5 

36.0 

36.8 

seed  Meal  _ 

8294 

8819 

T A.  Pass,  Sellershnrp- 

6.0 

5.0 

6.8 

36.0 

36.5 

Ralston  Purina  Company,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Protena  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8158 

6462 

Ralston  Purina  Co., 

Indianapolis  __  . — 

6.8 

5.0 

6.8 

36.0 

37.3 

Protena  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8158 

6632 

Harrison  Smith,  Terre  Haute... 

7.4 

5.0 

6.3 

36.0 

36.2 

ft  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished  109  5 tons  removed  from  sale 

196  200  lbs.  removed  from  sale.  Relabeled  with  200  18  tons  returned  to  Southern  Seed  Co.,  Louis- 

No.  8570  ville,  Ky. 

197  5%  tons  removed  from  sale.  Refund.  See  page  201  5 1/io  tons  removed  from  sale 

20  202  Composited  with  D8300 

198  3 tons  removed  from  sale  203  Refund.  See  page  20 


102 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

■d 

G 

§ 

Guar- 

anteed 

| Found  | 

Southern  Ootton  Oil  Company,  The, 

Memphis,  Tenn. 

Cotton  Seed  Meal  

8821 

8199 

Ohio  Valley  Seed  Co.,  Evansville 

5.5 

6.0 

6.1 

36.0 

36.1 

Southern  Seed  Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Economy  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8797 

8392 

F.  0.  Underhill,  Greens  Fork 

7.0 

5.0 

6.8 

36.0 

39.( 

Texas  Cake  & Linter  Company, 

Dallas,  Texas 

Sunset  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  and 

7035 

5918 

Reed  Able,  Modoc 

6.2 

6.0 

10.3 

41.0 

41.( 

Sunset  Brand  Prime  Cracked  Cotton- 

8598 

8390 

"Hurst  # fin.,  CTnlnmbns 

6.4 

5.0 

7.0 

41.0 

41.’ 

Union  Seed  & Fertilizer  Company, 

New  York,  N.  Y. 

“American  Red  Tag”  Cottonseed  Meal 

6210 

5676 

W.  M.  Erwin,  Inglefield 

6.3 

7.0 

6.5 

38.5 

40.1 

“American  Red  Tag”  Cottonseed  Meal 

6210 

5677 

W.  A.  Browning  Milling  Co., 

Evansville  

5.9 

7.0 

6.6 

38.5 

40.1 

“American  Red  Tag”  Cottonseed  Meal 

6210 

5708 

G.  Eberhardt  & Son,  Dale 

6.4 

7.0 

6.4 

38.5 

38.1 

“American  Red  Tag”  Cottonseed  Meal 

6210 

5769 

Wm.  Pfaff  & Frank  Kloster- 

man,  Huntingburg  

6.6 

7.0 

6.3 

38.5 

39.1 

“American  Red  Tag”  Cottonseed  Meal 

6210 

5770 

Wallace  Milling  Co.,  Dale 

6.1 

7.0 

6.2 

38.5 

38. 

“American  Red  Tag”  Cottonseed  Meal 

6210 

5811 

Boonville  Milling  Co.,  Boonville 

6.6 

7.0 

6.6 

38.5 

38.: 

“American  Red  Tag”  Cottonseed  Meal 

6210 

6775 

The  Heldt  Co.,  Evansville 

6.5 

7.0 

6.7 

38.5 

38.' 

Security  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7993 

5341 

Union  Grain  & Feed  Co., 

Anderson  — 

8.2 

5.5 

6.2 

36.0 

36J 

Security  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal204... 

7993 

5395 

Frank  Cooper,  Middletown 

8.3 

5.5 

7.2 

36.0 

32.: 

Security  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7993 

5465 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis. 

6.6 

5.5 

7.0 

36.0 

36. 

Security  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7993 

5526 

Kraus  & Apfelbaum, 

Fort  Wayne 

7.6 

5.5 

6.2 

36.0 

36.1 

Security  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7993 

5602 

Union  Grain  & Feed  Co., 

Anderson  

7.2 

5.5 

6.3 

36.0 

36. 

Security  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal- 

7993 

5630 

Edw.  F.  Goeke  Co.,  Evansville. _ 

6.3 

5.5 

7.3 

36.0 

37. 

Security  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal205 

7993 

5689 

Prater-Mottier  Co.,  Terre  Haute 

6.7 

5.5 

6.9 

36.0 

35. 

Security  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7993 

5690 

W.  C.  Hall  Milling  Co.,  Brazil.. 

6.1 

5.5 

7.0 

36.0 

36. 

Security  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal  __ _ 

7993 

5697 

W.  H.  Small  & Co.,  Evansville.. 

6.3 

5.5 

6.9 

36.0 

38. 

Security  Brand  Cottonseen  Meal206— 

7993 

5736 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis. 

7.5 

5.5 

6.7 

38.0 

35. 

Security  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal207— 

7993 

5831 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis. 

6.2 

5.5 

6.5 

36.0 

34. 

Security  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7993 

5838. 

Probst  & Kassebaum, 

Indianapolis  — 

6.5 

5.5 

6.8 

36.0 

37. 

Security  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7990 

5853 

W.  D.  Hurn  Milling  Co., 

Oorydon  Junction 

7.6 

5.5 

6.8 

36.0 

37. 

Security  Brand  nnttnnsppd  Meal 

7993 

5903 

O.  L.  Cauble,  Salem 

6.9 

5.5 

7.6 

36.0 

36. 

Security  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7993 

5905 

C.  H.  Ellis,  Muncie 

7.6 

5.5 

6.4 

36.0 

37. 

Security  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7993 

5949 

W.  L.  Skinner  Grain  Co., 

Dunkirk  

7.8 

5.5 

7.1 

36.0 

37. 

Security  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7993 

5963 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis. 

6.0 

5.5 

6.8 

36.0 

37. 

Security  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7993 

6310 

Union  Grain  & Feed  Co., 

Anderson  ... 

6.8 

5.5 

7.1 

36.0 

39. 

Security  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

7993 

7126 

J.  W.  McMillen  & Son, 

Fort  Wayne  

7.9 

5.5 

7.2 

36.0 

38. 

ttSurety  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8264 

5596 

E.  E.  Ray,  Sullivan 

7.5 

5.5 

6.8 

36.0 

36. 

ttSurety  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8264 

5600 

Joseph  A.  Crawford,  Sullivan... 

8.0 

5.5 

6.2 

36.0 

36. 

ttSurety  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8264 

5601 

Joseph  A.  Crawford,  Sullivan... 

7.0 

5.5 

7.1 

36.0 

36. 

Surety  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Mpal 

8264 

6003 

EmPSt  Spillers,  Ridgeville 

7.8 

5.5 

7.1 

36.0 

37. 

Surety  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8264 

0536 

Wakarusa  Milling  Co., 

Wakarusa  

8.4 

5.5 

6.2 

36.0 

35. 

Surety  Brand  Dotton  Sepd  Meal 

8264 

6770 

The  Heldt  Co.,  Evansville 

9.0 

5.5 

6.8 

36.0 

37. 

Surety  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8264 

6812 

W.  H.  Small  & Co.,  Evansville. 

7.0 

5.5 

7.0 

36.0 

36. 

Surety  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal.  — 

8264 

7641 

Probst  & Kassebaum, 

Indianapolis  

6.9 

5.5 

6.5 

36.0 

35. 

Surety  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal208 

8264 

7839 

Fisher  Bros.,  Evansville 

7.4 

5.5 

6.3 

36.0 

34. 

Surety  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8264 

7963 

Studebaker  Grain  & Seed  Co., 

Bluffton  

7.9 

5.5 

6.3 

36.0 

35. 

Surety  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8264 

8025 

Probst  & Kassebaum, 

Indianapolis  

7.4 

5.5 

6.6 

36.0 

35. 

Surety  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8264 

8182 

Kraus  & Apfelbaum, 

1 

Fort  Wayne  

7.2 

5.5 

7-4 

36.0 

36. 

Labels  furnished 

204  Refund.  See  page  20 

205  Refund.  See  page  20 


200  Refund.  See  page  20 

207  20  tons  removed  from  sale.  Returned  to  mfr. 

208  Refund.  See  page  20 


103 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Sample  secured  from 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Union  Seed  & Fertilizer  Company, 

New  York,  N.  Y. 

8194 

Star  Mill  Co.,  Huntingburg 

7.4 

6.7 

36.9 

8264 

8204 

Edw.  F.  Goeke  Co.,  Evansville  _ 

7.2 

5.5 

7.7 

36.0 

37.5 

Surety  Brand  Gnttnn  Sepd  Meal 

8264 

8248 

R.  C.  McNaughton,  Ray 

7.0 

5.5 

6.7 

36.0 

37.7 

Surety  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8264 

8260 

Union  Grain  & Feed  Co., 

Anderson  __  

8.1 

5.5 

7.3 

36.0 

37.0 

8264i 

8264 

T.  I.  Ferris,  Pleasant  Lake 

7.5 

5.5 

7.2 

36.0 

38.4 

Surety  Brand  Cotton  Seed  Meal 

8264 

8265 

T.  I.  Ferris,  Pleasant  Lake 

6.6 

5.5 

8.1 

36.0 

37.6 

Wagner -White  Company,  Inc., 

Jackson,  Mich. 

tfWaw-Co  Brand  Cottonseed  Meal 

8927 

8245 

Fremont  Co-operative  Assoc., 

Fremont  

6.7 

5.0 

6.1 

36.0 

37.6 

Walsh  & Company,  James, 

Lawrenceburg,  Ind. 

8812 

7678 

John  Crum,  Milan 

7.8 

8.0 

8.3 

38.6 

41.7 

COLD  PRESSED  COTTONSEED 

Mississippi  Delta  Planting  Company, 

Scott,  Miss. 

Acme  Brand  Cold  Pressed  Cottonseed- 

6125 

5646 

D.  D.  Skiles,  Rossville 

6.4 

7.0 

11.7 

23.0 

28.7 

Acme  Brand  Cold  Pressed  Cottonseed- 

6125 

5709 

Chas.  W.  Campbell,  Waveland__ 

6.7 

7.0 

10.7 

28.0 

29.9 

Acme  Brand  Cold  Pressed  Cottonseed- 

6125 

8045 

C.  P.  Moody,  Moody 

7.0 

7.0 

8.9 

23.0 

24.0 

BREWERS’  DRIED  GRAINS 

Edinger  & Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Arrow  Brewers  Grains 

8086 

5874 

Scottsburg  Milling  Co., 

Scottsburg  

6.6 

5.0 

6.5 

25.0 

26.8 

Evansville  Dried  Malt  & Feed  Company,! 

Evansville,  Ind. 

t+Dried  Brewers  Grains 

6384 

5624 

Ballard  & Magenheimer, 

Haubstadt  __  

6.7 

5.0 

7.1 

24.0 

26.9 

Dried  Brewers  Grains  __ 

6384 

5659 

Manufacturers  

4.9 

5.0 

6.9 

24.0 

32.8 

Dried  Brewers  Grains 

6384 

5859 

English  Milling  Co.,  English 

4.8 

5.0 

7.1 

24.0 

30.6 

Dried  Brewers  Grains 

6384 

6809 

Manufacturers 

6.6 

5.0 

7.2 

24.0 

27.6 

Dried  Brewers  Grains  

6384 

7822 

W.  H.  Small  & Co.,  Evansville.. 

5.6 

5.0 

6.6 

24.0 

30.0 

Fruechtenicht,  Henry,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Blue  Grass  Dried  Brewers  Grains 

8577 

7992 

M.  A.  Conroy,  Jeffersonville 

5.2 

6.0 

7.3 

26.0 

28.1 

Jones  Company,  J.  H.,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Big  J.  Brewers  Dried  Grains 

7724 

6268 

New  Albany  Milling  Co., 

New  Albany 

5.8 

5.0 

7.1 

25.0 

28.3 

Muessel  Brewing  Company,  The, 

South  Bend,  Ind. 

Muessel’s  Dried  Brewers  Grains 

5292 

7540 

J.  C.  Barrett,  South  Bend 

7.3 

6.1 

7.5 

24.0 

26.4 

Niemond,  K.  & E.,  Inc.,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

“Goldnes  Kalb”  Dried  Brewers  Grains 

7132 

6013 

Lingeman,  Adams  & Co., 

Brownsburg  

8.2 

6.0 

7.7 

24.0 

30.1 

•Brewers  Grains  

5651 

National  Military  Home,  Marion 

6.1 

-6.3 

26.8 

Kankin  & Company,  M.  (S. 

Milwaukee,  Wis. 

(Durham)  Dried  Brewers  Grains 

8682 

7354 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis.. 

6.2 

6.0 

7.2 

26.0 

31.8 

Scottsburg  Elevator,  Scottsburg,  Ind. 

Brewers  Dried  Grains  _ — 

8449 

8286 

Manufacturers 

5.3 

6.0 

5.5 

24.0 

24.4 

DISTILLERS’  DRIED  GRAINS 

American  Milling  Company,  Peoria,  111. 

Empire  State  Dairy  Feed  

8014 

5909 

J.  H.  Williamson  Co.,  Muncie 

4.4 

8.0 

12.2 

30.0 

32.3 

Empire  State  Dairy  Feed  

8014 

7020 

J.  H.  Williamson  Co.,  Muncie... 

6.8  1 

8.0 

10.8 

30.0 

34.2 

Not  tagged 


Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished 


104 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

o 

56 

o 

§ 

tn 

C 

i T3 

U $ 

03  £ 

-! 2 fl 
O rt 

TS 

e 

1 

i r° 

H 

o § 

T3 

S 

3 

O 

Atlas  Feed  & Milling  Co.,  Peoria,  111. 

7728 

5344 

Jay  Grain  Co.,  Mulberry. 

3.2 

11.0 

8.0 

30.0 

32.0 

7728 

5437 

John  L.  Sample,  Madison 

7.3 

11.0 

7.8 

30.0 

35.3 

Atlas  Distillers  Grains 

7728 

5650 

National  Military  Home,  Marion 

4.6 

11.0 

12.6 

30.0 

31.0 

Atlas  Distillers  Grains 

7728 

5782 

J.  Gienger  & Co.,  Jeffersonville. 

7.9 

11.0 

7.1 

30.0 

36.0 

Atlas  Distillers  Grains  211 

7728 

5819 

Louis  Hartman  & Sons, 

New  Albany 

8.1 

11.0 

6.6 

30.0 

33.1 

Atlas  Distillers  Grains 

8303 

6017 

Edgar  Logan  & Harry  Greene, 

Goshen  

3.7 

6.0 

8.2 

30.0 

34.9 

Conroy,  M.  A.,  Jeffersonville,  Ind. 

Sunny  Brook  Distillers  Dried  Grains.. 

8308 

5750 

Manufacturers  ..  

5.4 

7.0 

7.4 

29.0 

27.2 

Sunny  Brook  Distillers  Dried  Grains. . 

8308 

5864 

Scottsburg  Elevator  Co., 

Scottsburg  

5.7 

7.0 

9.8 

29.0 

34.9 

Dewey  Bros.  Company,  The, 

Blanchester,  Ohio 

Eagle  Three  D.  Grains 

3503 

5810 

Boonville  Milling  Co.,  Boonville 

7.0 

10.0 

9.8 

30.0 

32.2 

tfEagle  Three  D.  Grains 

3593 

7157 

Fountain  Produce  Co., 

Veedersburg  

9.0 

10.0 

11.4 

30.0 

30.1 

Edinger  & Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

8035 

5834 

c.  IT  Ashworth,  Drandall 

6.7 

10.0 

10.4 

30.0 

34.4 

Interstate  Feed  Association, 

Detroit,  Mich. 

Interstate  Dairy  & Hog  Feed 

7719 

8100 

Kinsey  Bros.,  North  Manchester 

6.3 

7.0 

5.0 

15.0 

15.8 

Jordan,  Geo.  M.,  Vincennes,  Ind. 

C M J Distillers  Lriert  Drains 

7511 

7222 

Manufacturer 

11.2 

10.0 

10.6 

30.0 

27.9 

Kentucky  Distillers  & Brewers  Dried 

Grain  Company,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Distillers  Dried  firninq 

7984 

5812 

J.  W.  Wilkinson,  Boonville 

7.2 

10.0 

10.1 

30.0 

31.4 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Distillers  Dnrn  Drains 

8025 

5544 

Dick  Hinton,  Bloomington 

3.8 

8.0 

13.1 

30.0 

32.7 

Mueller,  E.  P.,  Chicago,  111. 

M V-  CL  O.  Dried  Grains 

8631 

7371 

H.  Pope,  Valparaiso 

7.6 

5.0 

9.3 

21.0 

20.4 

Murphy  Distilling  Company, 

Vincennes,  Ind. 

Distillers  P^iecl  f'rT’ftins 

8082 

7212 

Manufacturers  . 

6.1 

9.0 

14.7 

26.0 

31.7 

Old  Vincennes  Distilling  Company, 

Vincennes,  Ind. 

OVD  Dried  Grains 

8030 

7211 

Manufacturers  — 

8.0 

10.0 

12.9 

30.0 

30.4 

Semans  Edible  Oils  Company, 

Indianapolis,  Ind. 

ft  Corn  Distillers  Dried  Grains 

(.Tersey  kranfl) 

8420 

6583 

Arthur  Turley,  Orleans 

6.4 

10.0 

11.5 

30.0 

34.2 

Squibb  Company,  W.  P., 

L awrenceburg,  Ind. 

Squibbs  Distillery  Dried  Grains 

7950 

5409 

Milan  Mill  & Elevator,  Milan — 

5.0 

9.0 

11.1 

30.0 

33.6 

Squibbs  Distillery  Dried  Grains 

7950 

7061 

Milan  Mill  & Elevator,  Milan... 

7.4 

9.0 

9.7 

30.0 

34.0 

^ ] 

Walsh  & Company,  James, 

Lawrenceburg,  Ind. 

Walden  Dried  Grains 

8069 

5393 

W.  D.  Wilson,  Osgood  

6.2 

11.5 

12.2 

28.5 

33.0 

Walden  Dried  Grains 

8069 

6274 

John  H.  Shine  & Co., 

New  Albany 

7.3 

11.5 

12.2 

28.5 

1 32.8 

Walden  Dried  Grains 

8069 

6439 

Farmers  Elevator  Co., 

Jamestown  

9.3 

11.5 

11.7 

28.5 

30.6 

Walden  Dried  Grains 

8069 

6581 

Bloomington  Milling  Co., 

Bloomington 

7.0 

11.5 

12.3 

28.5 

33.5 

Walden  Dried  Grains 

8069 

7444 

l Chas.  Jenkins,  Georgetown  

7.6 

11.5 

11.0 

28.5 

1 31.4 

ft  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished 

209  1300  lbs.  removed  from  sale.  Relabeled 
No.  8303 


210  3 i3/20  tons  removed  from  sale 

2n  ±i/2  tons  removed  from  sale.  Relabeled  No.  8303 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1f  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

1 Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

YEAST  GRAINS 

Mueller,  Edw.  P.,  Chicago,  111. 

Fleischman’s  Dried  Grains 

77021 

5569 

Luebcke  Bros.,  Crown  Point. 

7.9 

7.0 

6.7 

19.0 

19.2 

LINSEED  MEAL 

American  Linseed  Company, 

New  York,  N.  Y. 

4859 

5605 

O,  F,  Niehnls  & On  , Lnwell 

8.8 

6.0 

6.8 

34.0 

36.0 

Old  Prnppss  Linsppd  Oil  Mpal 

4859 

5626 

Pnr  Pnrtpr,  Rpmingtnn 

7.4 

6.0 

8.7 

34.0 

35.1 

Old  Process  Linseed  Oil  Meal 

4859 

6459 

August  Hoffman,  Indianapolis. 

7.7 

6.0 

6.5 

34.0 

34.9 

Old  Process  Linseed  Oil  Meal 

4859 

7353 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis. 

8.6 

6.0 

6.5 

34.0 

34.0 

Archer  Daniels  Linseed  Company, 

Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Old  Process  Ground  Linseed  Cake 

1834 

7286 

J.  C.  Barrett,  South  Bend 

7.5 

6.0 

6.9 

32.0 

34.6 

Old  Process  Ground  Linseed  Cake 

1834 

7560 

Przybysz  Flour  & Feed  Co., 

South  Bend 

9.3 

6.0 

6.5 

32.0 

33.8 

Old  Process  Ground  Linseed  Cake 

1834 

7920 

Omer  G.  Whelan,  Richmond 

7.6 

6.0 

6.7 

32.0 

36.0 

Badenoch  Company,  J.  J.,  Chicago,  111. 

ttOld  Process  Oil  Meal  212 

8763 

7567 

Cash  Flour  & Feed  Co., 

South  Bend  __  

9.2 

6.0 

6.8 

30.0 

27.7 

Chicago  Heights  Oil  Mfg.  Company, 

Chicago,  111. 

Old  Prnppss  Oil  Mpal 

6351 

5400 

Watkins  fr,  Oripp,  Lincoln 

7.8 

6.0 

6.3 

32.0 

36.3 

Old  Prnppss  Oil  Meal 

6351 

5603 

L.  Keilman  Co.,  Dyer  __  _.  __  _ 

8.8 

6.0 

6.5 

32.0 

35.0 

Old  Process  Oil  Meal.  __  

6351 

5707 

Sam  Milligen,  Jr.,  Waveland 

7.5 

6.0 

6.1 

32.0 

36.8 

Old  Prnppss  Oil  Mpal 

6351 

5936 

Fnrl  Mnmmprt,  Flora 

8.3 

6.0 

6.4 

32.0 

36.2 

Old  Process  Oil  Meal.  

6351 

7299 

Middlebury  Grain  Co., 

Middlebury  

8.5 

6.0 

8.7 

32.0 

35.5 

Old  Process  Oil  Meal 

6351 

8038 

New  Albany  Milling  Co., 

New  Albany 

7.5 

6.0 

7.6 

32.0 

37.2 

Dickinson  Company,  The  Albert 

Chicago,  111. 

Dipkinsnn’s  Linsppd  Mpal 

6404 

5923 

H.  E.  Pitman,  Bedford  _.  . 

7.4 

5.0 

6.5 

32.0 

36.0 

Dickinson’s  Linseed  Meal __ 

6404 

7257 

Wesley  Miller  Flour  & Feed  Co., 

South  Bend  

7.9 

5.0 

8.1 

32.0 

33.3 

Hirst  & Begley  Linseed  Company, 

Chicago,  111. 

ttHirst  & Begley  Linseed  Co.,  Brand 

Linseed  Meal  ... 

7165 

6043 

Hartman  & Dotterer,  Bluffton. 

7.9 

6.0 

7.1 

34.0 

33.8 

ttHirst  & Begley  Linseed  Co.,  Brand 

Linseed  Meal  . 

7165 

6480 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis - 

9.1 

6.0 

6.7 

34.0 

34.6 

ttHirst  & Begley  Linseed  Co.,  Brand 

Linseed  Meal  

7166 

7087 

G.  L.  Watson  Grain  Co.,  Redkey 

8.9 

6.0 

8.0 

34.0 

35.4 

Hirst  & Begley  Linseed  Co.,  Brand 

Linseed  Meal  

7165 

7321 

Loughry  Bros.  Milling  & Grain 

Co.,  Monticello  

8.0 

6.0 

7.2 

34.0 

34.3 

Kellogg  & Sons,  Inc.,  Spencer, 

Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

ttOld  Process  Oil  Meal—  

5877 

6273 

John  H.  Shine  & Co., 

New  Albany  

7.1 

5.0 

6.1 

33.0 

36.9 

Old  Process  Oil  Meal 

58(77 

6771 

Edw.  F.  Goeke  Co.,  Evansville.. 

7.4 

5.0 

5.7 

33.0 

36^3 

Old  Prnppss  Oil  Mpal 

5877 

7122 

Hurst  fr,  Co.,  Cnlnmbns 

7.7 

5.0 

5.2 

33.0 

35.3 

Metzger  Seed  & Oil  Company,  The, 

Toledo,  Ohio 

Old  Process  Oil  Meal — 

0672 

7950 

Richmond  Roller  Mills, 

Richmond  

8.5 

5.0 

7.5 

30.0 

33.8 

Midland  Linseed  Products  Company, 

Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Midland  Brand  Pure  Old  Process 

Ground  Linseed  Cake 

5357 

5355 

H.  A.  Crossland,  Indianapolis.  _ 

8.4 

5.5 

7.8 

32.0 

35.3 

Midland  Brand  Pure  Old  Process 

Ground  Linseed  Cake 

5367 

5367 

H.  A.  Crossland,  Indianapolis.. 

8.5 

5.5 

6.8 

32.0 

36.4 

Midland  Brand  Pure  Old  Process 

Ground  Linseed  Cake 

5367 

5609 

Brook  Flour  & Feed  Mill,  Brook 

8.6 

5.5 

7.4 

32.0 

35.9 

io6 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 


Midland  Linseed  Products  Company, 
Minneapolis,  Minn. 
ttMidland  Brand  Pure  Old  Process 

Ground  Linseed  Cake 

Midland  Brand  Pure  Old  Process 

Ground  Linseed  Cake 

Midland  Brand  Pure  Old  Process 

Ground  Linseed  Cake 

Midland  Brand  Pure  Old  Process 

Ground  Linseed  Cake 

Midland  Brand  Pure  Old  Process 

Ground  Linseed  Cake 

Midland  Brand  Pure  Old  Process 

Ground  Linseed  Cake 

Midland  Brand  Pure  Old  Process 

Ground  Linseed  Cake 

ttMidland  Brand  Pure  Old  Process 

Ground  Linseed  Cake 

ttMidland  Brand  Pure  Old  Process 

Ground  Linseed  Cake 

Midland  Brand  Pure  Old  Process 

Ground  Linseed  Cake213 

ttMidland  Brand  Pure  Old  Process 

Ground  Linseed  Cake 

*01d  Process  Ground  Linseed  Cake 

Minnesota  Linseed  Oil  Company, 
Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Ground  Oil  Cake  or  Oil  Meal 

Sherwin-Williams  Company,  The, 
Cleveland,  Ohio. 

S.  W.  C.  Linseed  Meal  

Toledo  Seed  & Oil  Company,  The, 
Toledo,  Ohio 

Major  Brand  Old  Process  Oil  Meal 

Major  Brand  Old  Process  Oil  Meal 

Major  Brand  Old  Process  Oil  Meal 

Major  Brand  Old  Process  Oil  Meal 

LINSEED  MEAL  AND  FLAXSEED 
SCREENINGS 

American  Milling-  Company,  Peoria,  111. 
Amco  Old  Process  Linseed  Meal  and 
Old  Process  Plax  Screenings  Oil 

Peed  

Amco  Old  Process  Linseed  Meal  and 
Old  PrDcess  Flax  Screenings  Oil 

Peed  

Amco  Old  Process  Linseed  Oil  Meal 
and  Screenings  Oil  Peed 

UNSCREENED  FLAXSEED  OIL 
FEED 

Laxo  Cake  Meal  Company,  The 
Chicago,  111. 

Old  Process  Laxo  Cake  Meal 

Old  Process  Laxo  Cake  Meal 


Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Official 

Inspection 

D 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

Guar- 

anteed 

Found 

5367 

5612 

McCray  Grain  Co.,  Kentland 

9.9 

5.5 

6.8 

32.0 

36.3 

5367 

5649 

National  Military  Home,  Marion 

8.6 

5.5 

8.2 

32.0 

36.0 

5307 

5681 

D.  L.  Trout,  Lee 

8.9 

5.5 

7.2 

32.0 

36.9 

5367 

5981 

Brook  Plour  & Peed  Mill,  Brook 

9.4 

5.5 

7.5 

32.0 

36.5 

5367 

5980 

J.  J.  Lawler,  Pogue 

9.6 

5.5 

8.0 

32.0 

36.0 

5367 

6449 

H.  A.  Crossland  & Co., 

Indianapolis  _ _ 

7.8 

5.5 

6.7 

32.0 

34.7 

5367 

6468 

H.  A.  Crossland  & Co., 

Indianapolis  _____ 

8.5 

5.5 

6.7 

32.0 

35.0 

5367 

7251 

Standard  Hay  & Grain  Co., 

Terre  Haute  

7.2 

5.5 

9.3 

32.0 

34.8 

5307 

7379 

Thomas  Milling  Co.,  Marion 

8.3 

5.5 

7.6 

32.0 

33.3 

5367 

7471 

Co-operative  Elevator  Co., 

Winamac  __  __ 

8.5 

5.5 

6.6 

32.0 

31.9 

8570 

7905 

H.  A.  Gaddis,  Modoc 

8.8 

5.0 

8.1 

32.0 

36.6 

— 

7209 

D.  R.  Rumple,  Berne  

8.0 

— 

7.8 

— 

34.7 

5405 

6519 

Goshen  Milling  Co.,  Goshen 

8.9 

5.0 

6.0 

34.0 

36.9 

1723 

5872 

Geo.  Bollinger,  Henryville 

7.9 

6.0 

6.2 

33.0 

36.3 

5546 

5731 

Goodrich  Bros.  Hay  & Grain 

Co.,  Westfield  _ 

8.0 

5.0 

6.4 

30.0 

33.8 

8713 

7440 

Studebaker  Grain  & Seed  Co., 

Bluffton  

9.0 

6.0 

6.5 

33.0 

34.1 

8713 

7576 

Union  Grain  & Feed  Co., 

Anderson  

8.4 

6.0 

6.2 

33.0 

34.6 

8713 

8069 

S.  P.  Trembley  Co., 

Columbia  City  __  

9.8 

6.0 

5.8 

33.0 

34.1 

8169 

5638 

Edw.  F.  Goeke  Co.,  Evansville.. 

9.0 

5.0 

6.9 

30.0 

31.2 

8169 

5843 

Thomas  & Hickman,  Corydon.. 

10.1 

5.0 

6.8 

30.0 

30.0 

8378 

7819 

Ohio  Valley  Seed  Co.,  Evansville 

7.9 

5.0 

7.1 

30.0 

31.7 

4'018 

6484 

Wm.  Rouse  & Sons, 

Indianapolis  

8.1 

6.0 

9.1 

25.0 

25.6 

4618 

7691 

Wm.  Rouse  & Son,  Indianapolis 

7.6 

6.0 

9.2 

25.0 

26.7 

* Not  tagged  213  300  lbs.  removed  from  sale.  A palm  nut  meal 

ft  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished  present 


io7 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918 

(continued) 


Label 

Number 

Sample  secured  from 

Moisture 

percent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

3 

‘3 

£ 

o 

s 

o 

o 

m 

a 

i 73 

U 

O rt 

73 

C 

1 

§2 

3 a 

O 3 

73 

(3 

1 

WHEAT 

MIDDLINGS,  PALM  OIL 

Newsome  Feed  & Grain  Company,  The, 

Pittsburgh,  Pa. 

6911 

5454 

Early  & Daniel  Co.,  Aurora 

6.0 

6.0 

7.2 

16.0 

16.5 

Palmo 

Midds  

6911 

5733 

Branch  Grain  & Seed  Co., 

Martinsville  ___  

3.7 

6.0 

8.6 

16.0 

16.5 

Palmo 

Midds 

6911 

5734 

Branch  Grain  & Seed  Co., 

Martinsville  

3.1 

6.0 

9.7 

16.0 

16.5 

Palmo 

Midds  _ 

6911 

6318 

John  G.  Donavan  & Son, 

Yorktown  

5.6 

6.0 

8.9 

16.0 

17.1 

Palmo 

Midds 

6911 

7012 

Pierce  Elevator  Co.,  Union  City 

6.9 

6.0 

9.3 

16.0 

16.1 

Palmo 

Midds  

6911 

7343 

Union  Hardware  Co.,  Lebanon. 

7.0 

6.0 

8.1 

16.0 

16.2 

Palmo 

Midds  _ 

6911 

7355 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis. 

5.6 

6.0 

7.9 

16.0 

16.3 

Midds  

7423 

New  Castle  Elevator  Co., 

New  Castle 

6.1 

8.4 

16.9 

Palmo 

Midds 214  _ ___ 

6911 

7485 

B.  I.  Holser  & Co.,  Walkerton— 

5.9 

6.0 

10.4 

16J) 

16.2 

Palmo 

Midds 

6911 

7491 

Davis  Grain  Co.,  Clarks  Hill 

6.2 

6.0 

7.9 

16.0 

17.2 

♦Palmo 

Midds 

7586 

Purdue  University, 

West  Lafayette 

5.4 

10.1 

16.2 

♦Palmo 

Midds 

7655 

Forest  R.  Miller,  Mulberry  _ 

3.8 

10.2 

16.0 

tfPalmo 

Midds 

6911 

7656 

Allan  & Kluth,  Mulberry 

3.5 

6.0 

8.1 

16.0 

16.4 

Palmo 

Midds 

6911 

7767 

Judson  Creamery  & Produce 

Co.,  North  Judson 

4.4 

6.0 

9.7 

16.0 

17.5 

Palmo 

Midds 

6911 

7768 

Judson  Creamery  & Produce 

Co.,  North  Judson 

5.1 

6.0 

9.9 

16.0 

17.4 

Palmo 

Midds __ _ 

6911 

7830 

B.  I.  Holser  & Co.,  Walkerton.. 

6.0 

6.0 

9.9 

16.0 

16.1 

Palmo 

Midds  

6911 

7898 

Anderson  & Hollingsworth, 

Economy  

5.4 

6.0 

8.1 

16.0 

16.5 

♦Palmo 

Midds 

7907 

Newsome  Feed  & Grain  Co., 

Williamsburg  

6.1 

8.3 

17.0 

Palmo 

Midds  _ — _ 

6911 

7908 

F.  C.  Williams,  Fountain  City.. 

6.7 

6.0 

19.7 

16.0 

15.7 

Palmo 

Midds 

6911 

7934 

Lines  & Boyd,  Dunreith  

6.4 

6.0 

7.2 

16.0 

16.2 

Palmo 

Midds  

6911 

7942 

Anderson  & Sons  Grain  Co., 

Milton 

7.4 

6.0 

5.3 

16.0 

16.8 

Palmo 

Midds  

6911 

8017 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis. 

5.0 

6.0 

6.8 

16.0 

17.2 

Palmo 

Midds  215  

6911 

8018 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis. 

4.2 

6.0 

9.7 

16.0 

17.5 

Pa'mo 

Midds 

6911 

8019 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis. 

4.4 

6.0 

7.1 

16.0 

17.4 

Palmo 

Midds  . ...  ___  

6911 

8020 

McCoy  & Garten,  Indianapolis. 

4.6 

6.0 

8.2 

16.0 

17  3 

Palmo 

Midds  

6911 

8099 

Kinsey  Bros.,  North  Manchester 

6.3 

6.0 

10.1 

16.0 

15.4 

Palmo 

Midds 

6911 

8228 

Steward  Lumber  & Grain  Co., 

Spencerville  

5.1 

6.0 

7.1 

16.0 

16.9 

ttPalmo 

Midds  

6911 

8375 

Brown  & Leach,  Fairmount 

4.2 

6.0 

7.6 

16.0 

16.7 

PEANUT  FEED,  PALM  OIL 

♦Palmo 

Meal  216 

7309 

Geo.  L.  Etter,  North  Vernon 

6.7 

7.1 

6.9 

♦Palmo 

Meal  216 

7310 

Frank  Etter,  North  V^tnon 

6.9 

6.6 

7.1 

♦Palmo 

Meal  2i« 

7311 

W.  M.  Richardson, 

North  Vernon  

7.5 

___ 

6.7 



6.8 

* Not  tagged  215  Conflicting  guarantees 

tt  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished  216  Manufacturer  could  not  be  ascertained 

214  Adulterated  with  peanut  hulls.  All  sold  | I 


io8 


a £ 
8.2 


_ o w 
g d d 

O'0” 

o ^ ” 
c - 


a * 


<u.a  c 

'O  OJ  o 

g O ° 
u a ° 


rS  fi 
13  4J  S 

g d o 


puno^j 


paa^u-e 

-a^n9 


putlog 


paa^tre 

-•ran*) 


*^uaa  aatf 

aan^sioj^; 


a 

uoi^oadeui 


l^PHJO 


+J  ^.CT' 

° f.  CO 

° ts 
S-ji 

d 03  d 

m ° 2 

<H 

S >>3-> 

r|  0 d 

SI° 

§'■*1 

-s® 

•P  ^ 

ctf  fQ  <D 
CD  O CD 
rj  ^ W 

^ ».S 


d d $ 
03  0)  to 
C d ” 

II -s 

03  03  g 


03  w 
03  d 
W 03  - 

O £ 03  ” 
+J  03  ta 


g 03 
O W 
03  to 


-T  O 

g S- 

a 


C 03  to 

o a. a 

d u 

r&  ° bfl 
Z,  CD 

C w 
3 

o o 

^ +-> 

O 


o o u 
<m  eg 
o ° -r 

CD  CO  " 

flfi  s 

3 3-g 

+j  03  03  ^ 

d g a d 

” d d Sh 

co  co  o 


r d 

6 S 

®sa 

d d £ 
d £ q 

> O 
Ed  +»  d 
, J3  Sh 

*'  o 


8 O 

CJ  rd 

<J  E-l 


g3  Eh 


qo  e> 


. Ph 
d • «3 

IlSS 


_ <H  .5  d 

to  c 0 

c c 0 ° 

g O £ 
ho  >> 
6a  ^ o 
* to-d-s 

” bn  s a 
g I .S  s ^ 
SgSgc- 
fl  ■“  1 § g 

to  >»  S-0' 

*2 

(D^j- 

ri  rQ  r*  to  <D 

t|*sg 

c»  P-i  > 


eo  -*+e 

03  ° d 


^ fl,  ^ w 

O^P  U o 

id?»,drH 

03  d 03  ^3 

,isj  _ m d 
oC«o3 
ds-gdp 
i-,  o 2 u t-> 
U O $ U V 


PP 


5S  **  d 

8 5J 

ft  — *0  <n  d 
d « ^ 

+->  £ >■  d 

03  D s 
> 03-  a d . 

03  br  ® d 03 
>■  d 'O  c bn 
,rt  ft  d 
_ g *>  ^3 

? d ® to  C 
H W H 60  hh  0 00  d 

CO  00  CO  d rj  +J 

(O  to  to  ^3  d -.h 

tDtctoS^dd 

tototfi^^bfiS 


— < 03  03 

?aa 

« d d 

01  CO 


03  03  03  d'dsd'd 
- <u  - 
,d 


C13  03  03  ra  ‘(J  R ro  ’U 

ddd00®00 

a 5 


Mffi  ^ 


C O 

5 a 


Is 

° d 

b d 
.5  03 

as 

o 

■“S 


c -r 

d d 

S-  03 


o o o 

CO  CD  oi 


o o 

03  c> 


o o © o © o 
©©©■©©  CO 


lnioiomio© 

(JO  03  C<3  O’  03  'tdH 


: t~  CO  to  03 
: CO  ^ IS 


<M  CO  ^ 03  © © 


h o r 

!£ft° 

oso 

1 d 


Sn'o  o 
du£0 
X bjoM  d • 

P<  r-;  ^ C O ^ 

®a  to  § «o 

-cd  o .2  td  m 

tn  ^jpq 

£ g & 

I | St-o  g 

pqgM!z3^<iJ 


^03  _03  l 
g,’>>  33 

S§£»2 

P*  0,0  w ^ 
^ x:  £1  p c3 
^coco  dW 

. . d w 03 

o ° 

“3  H §3 

: to  rL 

SHhlOh 

<1 


o „ 

Ph  d 


33  ^ 
tuo  i 


cgagCC  -g 

W to  4 ^ 
iBT3HO 

Sh 

g to'  Fc] 

?SSoc5 


O ” 


S-s 


aH^. 

d o *h 

O-W  4) 

+3  ba-^ 

be  d p 

| SO 

a o . 

°Oft 

O K 


1 d 

: o d |d 
l.“  o o 

i’sS§§ 

;^o.^ 

1 g'S'^  ^ 

|§^s“ 

to  Sh  d 03 

ai«° 

6>?oo 


g s§ 

g2 


<N  fc-  QD  ij  CJ  Cb 
i— i © a>  © -itt 

t-  to  co  ® ©fo. 


liliil  SISI! 

CO  © to  c^  00  ^5  OOcSDoOoDoD 


q?  a? 

CD  CD 

PH 

a .g 
5 ’S 


a . 

o to  «<5  03 

O'ft  r° 

w o 

ggSS 

rC  rT  “ “3 
HR  » 

05 

05 

>> 

A C/i 

s«s& 

d d 

*3 

gjM-s 

S 5 § § 

ft 

O Q 03  03 

05 

& *3  a tq 

CH  o1^ 

NN  | | 

s 

05 

g *<pi| 

pqm<C<! 

<1 

P CD 
O .05 

Is 

. aj 

PM  | 
Hi? 
d^ 

a ni 


ft  S 
S o 

6r§W'a'a-d  ^ c 

w . ^ Q;  2 Cfi  tW 

S^PHEu  ' ' 


CD  CD 

P^Ph 


d 

a 

aS 

rn  C 
C CCS 
o3  'j~2 
#05  ^ 

05  1 

a 


I o o 


o o O Sh‘  Sh' 

O O O aj  O O 

CJ  05  05  <D  O 

a a a-s  a a 

o o o s O o 

WffiWKMM 


CD  QJ  QJ  QJ  ^ 

pHp^pHp^[iI 


*-*  PH  HH  ^ 

OOOOS 

ftWWffiW 

o o o o o 

C3  C3  C3  O C 

aaaaa 

o o o o o 
ffiWWEM 


> 

d 

° r 

S 6 

03  Q 

"S  d 


d c qj 

° gpq 

cm 


'C'O 

S.03 

PhPh 

be 

o.d 


a-R 

o £ 

WM 


io9 


fi  3 


.-s 


33  iS  -p 

ft  o 
"So 
.2  fl 

d ^ 


tO 


<D  ft 

ft  Pi 
M P ft 
% 

w 

bj0  O 

Ifl 

© ft  °° 
Sod 


3 p d^ 

ho  3 o ft 

t-.  d ft 

60  P 


d o 
o *-.  , 
ft- 


cd  ^ ir!  co  co  00 
<i>  C S:  co  co  00 

d r-5  ^ 00  oo  CO 
C 5 ^ LO  U3  IO 
^ ? 


oa 


£o 
•5  S 


° £ 
ft  O 


d P 

~ 3 


d 8 


■a  «S 
d o 

3 8 


S 8 


: ft  ft 

O w eo  d 
» 

- ftM  <m  d 


.d  o w 

£ -ft 

ft  d 

■o  S 2 

|iE 

s.® 

did 

o >>  ft 

ft  rt  O 
60ft  _ 


Oifl  ft' 
O 0) 
ft  af 

<D  O 


2 ®" 

p.* 


d ft 


d d 
o S 

a .2 

ft  o 


^ _n  w M 

03  ^ ^ 
gogH 


03 


tjo  , *H  O 

PP  gPft  bogPpP 

' _ . m d o * .. 


tn  to 


O cs 


^ to  ^ ft  o o 

£ S S « a s 

O ft  u a csj  ns 
U O W CQ 


O - >,  to  to  M 
j to  W .Q  d d d 

2 o ft  _ O O O 

: ft  2 d 8 8 8 

j o im  o ^ oj  ^ 

50  tOtOtO 


P o' 
3ft' 


ft  cl  O 

d 8 d 

« d Jh 

to  o 


QQft. 

<D  ‘ 

03  03  <D 

C$  ctf  «M 

nft  <D  <D  ' 

lass 

ft  d d o 
to  03  O 


to  d 
03 

^ -Si- 


ft d 60  ' 

d 2 .8 


!S£S  <o ' 


, "£  P d 

d o 
i o to  © 
■ d to 


t o to  d 

O 


3 d o 

to  o 


(D  pj  oo  co 

t,  ft  Q Q 
a)  d M M 

* 6o  “ 2 

CO  CO 

8 g © © 
co  o 8 8 
p-p  § § 
to  to 


00  00  cc 

© Q5  00 


Ol  02 
© '# 


00  03  CO  05 

CO  ffiN 

ft  ©6  ©a  tM 


too  © © 

CO  LO  LO  lO 

tH  (Si  CS1  <M 


(M  CO  O 00 


CO  CO  00 

Cpwo 


^ C © 

P 3 
£ p - 


J5§§ 

d d P 
o o 

!m  O - 

ft  ft  “ 


6 -. 


8 d 


d X 
i d d 
fttd 
ft 


© - 
■0” 
d d d 


O 60  60 

O 


io  ^ 


8 8 
03 

0 p 

■ g 2 fe 
dg  l» 
to  P> 


w X 

o c 


bo  !h 
.8  2 
d 

• co  . 

2 d 

tj  W 
© >>iS 
^ d c 
^ d 8 


- _o> 

S3  © 
ftd 

I* 

c « 
.8  ® 

S o 
SW- 


© r- 

gco 

< 


© © - - 
'gSdS 
500  g 


's  9 

G O 

S w 

r 

-a  o 
O -© 

Ph  O 

gf  25 


r c3  p5  w -j-  O 


-Slwa 

ring's  & 

• S .00.5 

o^K'g'p 
_§  ©^  g a 

E-i  *fS  i-3  P-t ,— 1 


^«Is 

«S°o 
W O © o 


X3  O 
.20 
ft  . 
©ft 

to  . * 
O P 
p:d 

ftft 


P’3 

Oft 

fl  © 

ft  3 

5 d 

do 


© © 
S 2 


ftft 

oo 


ii  m 


® Cl  © © 

iiii 


Sfe 


-■3 


© 0J 

rX  ® 

d ft 


© © © Rr. 

ftftft^ 

t>.  >.  P.  ^ 


ft  ft 

a cs 

> a;  ^ +_r 

<D  T3  C3  02 

ft  S3|^ 

d ^3d3  • 

d ft  .02  ^ 

.2  oi  . 

ft  !2i  O 


d d p 


©S3  S3  S3 

ft  ft  ftQ 


O O 
o © 

8 8 


8 8 
■3<j 


C3  ™ 

OO 


© © © © 
© © © © 


<ito  tototcto 


ft 

© © 

ttftft 

A 03  c3 

gftft 

Eh  o o 
© © 
as  a 

a<j<j 


CL)  CD 

§ 60 
o 
sW 

ft  o 


a § 

<Jco 


>>ft 


©p 
© o 


to<$ 


OO 

o o 
© © 
a.  a 
« 


>1  f© 

a © 
d S 

ft  ft 

a >1 

O n 

O ’3 
60  fi 
.a  >. 

rd  d) 
ft  03 

s^t' 

d 5 P" 
*-§ 
r^OM 


ft  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished  217  Conflicting  guarantees 


no 


p c$ 

<D 

'S'gS 

sag 

o g ® 
"C  aJ  2 

<D  q 5 
<h  hr.'o 


_ o m 
s C Cj 

i 3 ^ 
^2  ^ 0 
O r°  W 
§ 

.2  So 


3 +1 

^•sg 

g O ° 


w 
Co  o 


puno^ 


paa^tre 

-aeao 


putlog 


paa^uB 

-jbuo 


•q.uao  jad 
aan^sioj^ 


q ii 


^ c 
. — 0) 
c3  <d 


>000000 


o 4) 
C 33 


■iaio 


-tomtotoaKD  g - eS  to  ifi 
" ia  io  io  io  in  io  g j;  jj10 

SPPPPPP  8*  o 8 op 


w w 


0 d ctf  ctf  oj 
^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 


'd 

'd  p & 

d a 


saagEBpg-c 


§ §3  a 

Ma3a3co3rfrtJ^£lilJ;*J'c‘rf 
UWttHCWtOtfiO  0 CQ 


« 5 

n « 


« S^sg 

Oi^  ^ 

^ ’P  . ,Q  co  cS 
CD  f-  c«  O S3  S 

M © +j  ^ M .3 

23  O £ 


C o P 4-J  (X) 

Sh  £3  Ch  03  H m 

o H o O S a> 

O 43  O q_i 

_.  3 ^ 

'O  ^ ’D  --<  <D  3 

CD  ID  fl  a)  t) 

X rs  X d w +j 

O v o 3!  £ 3 

ctf  © ai  O Or< 

a f<+i  5« 

O OP 


fi- 

8p 

■gS 

X <D 

O 2 

3 S 

Ch  cj 

o m 


OOOOOOOO  © 

cni  in  e4  <N  cn  in  in  <N  co 


2 d o 32 

3 a?  « O 

_ ft 

, '3  _■• 

•q  P ® cs 

| = E» 

© 03 
S3  ^ © © 
c«  o »3 


■3- 8 8** 

ii  s 

g h3  _; 
w _J  c6  to 

3 tS  6 g g g 

© .®  fi  a b 

O J 3 B O B 

k ® b o a o 
2 0)  3 O X o 
•5  £j  32  3 

H q c -a 

.33  D 
« « £.2 
.2  © o o 32  g 

C3C  p,ce  2 

<J  o 


a 

uorjaadsuj 


I^PHJO 


O 


, tn 

'g  3 

° a 

-a  a 

cu  35 

cq  o 

,o 

3 .,  Si 

£ a « 

O cd  q 
bo^  13 


i _,  i a> 

i i 33 

fl  :i 

q,B  S a 
=3 « B S 
p.9^ 

■O  r 


x)  r 

q O o on 

»hOqO  a 


o 

S 6100 

Si  3 ^ 

h m ?>.N 


! 03 

or  \B 

o jfl 

.fl  ! 3" 


«8  3 


n a 9 

OjjOO  . 

^ > go« 

.22  cd  3 ^ 


. 0 
>ica 
i O rl 

iO-S 


o^  §3 


hgqgO 

oW  8Mc« 

' , ffl  ^ 

>> 

^ SB  59 

“CC  002  3 

O 02  S 


33  p: 


t>  t> 

to  co 

ri  a 


> > 

MH 


CD  q) 

a ft 
sh  q 
03  03 

ww 


ft  ft 

Ch  tH 
03  Ci 

MM 


I ^ \ 

> S S < 


. vjs  U5  cs>  y?  tr 


i ss^^sis 


i <j 


is  g 

1 M 


T3  *P  T3  *P 
. 0 0 0 0 
d P 0 0 0 0 

O Ofi|f3Hf3HpH 


KB  H h H D 

00001 

s £MMMMr 

co  Mqq  qq' 
^1)0000 
M M S 9 .9  S ’ 

0 0 cj  cd  o3  c3 

m m 5 3 5 5 1 


« o 

°M 

C3  33 


WM 

4% 

. q 

l-Z  ^ 
- O 

6M 
O «! 


m q 

co  -2 
O S3 

3 o 


w O ^ 

|S| 

O §2 

-p  S "8 

^ 3 

q M 

PQ 


O <s 

bo 


M jpq 


«8  !>  03  > 

33  ”33  M 

© > ® > 
33HgP 
Eh  .Eh 


M O 


o o 

MM 


bo  bo 

MM 


M 


^4  bo 

mkm 

ca  . 

O fl.w 

OS  rQ 

_.  bo  p 

00  33 

M « 3 
3^  S3 

5 S 

ffl 


o o 
3 .M  M 

rv  ^ 

n P P 

o s2  S 

°l6  o 


2? 

s M 


Molasses  Food  Coi 


III 


WOH 

c4 


>d  o Q 
© c 
© S w 


+j  s 

o « cs 
O w 


50 

k.  ® 

> bo 

O c$ 

~ M 
. C 

fc<  aj 
P ■*-> 
O 

<B  cj 


■&  - 


bo  ' 
o H 
'O  c 
T3  S 


>>  © 
3 •§ . 

cd  P 
,Q 

O - 


SfcJ  ^ 


T3  S 
1 © C 
« es 


■a  ® ©m. 

§»-««  5 


® 'O 
2 © 
o ® 

'SOg 


« 6 

« - 
© cd 
^ 2 


O <tj 


to  2 

bfi  g TH  TJ-  _ 
C 05  05  5; 
2 -d  00  00  oo 
■g  ii)1010^ 

^ kqq. 

■g  H 

^ in  SO  M 03 

^ . d «J  cd 

S|  H ® It  ® 

^Jsss 

|>  ft  cd  cd  cd 

t>  W 02  03 


V 


-d 
. © 
f->  © 
s to 
o c 

C gj 

>»  C 
® d 
t- 1 o 
cd  c 

n 


®*°°ns^ 

bOi-H  ,-1  JO  05 
d °o  5300 

C _ C3 
dfiQ  «Q 


ra  cd  cd  g,  cd 

bo  ®* 

c®®u® 

= a b © g 

ft  cd  cd  S cd 

MW  M 


05  05 
00  00 
ICO  ITS  1 

PPI 


© <10 
s a 


° . 2 

fifi  £ 


^05  00  g g gj05  05  05 

00  LO  ~ Wo°oooo 
g l_0  CS  UJ  ^ tO  LO  LO 

5)P  BpP  btp  gppp 

g w W t»  « 


J3  ft  ft 

05  © 

^ © © 

■g  ao  ce 

2 e - c -a 

« 5^3® 

£ 

ft,cgfio§ 

■ -m  cs  2 

S cs  05  S*0"'  6®  •>*  ■*»< 

S ©I  00  W00  05  05 

^ BSLra^io^aoooo 

a © oujio 
0 Sq  Sfi  =QQ 


tn  "g 


cd  cd 


ft  ® -w  g-d  2 

® a ® s ® a 

« EdJ5  Sc  id 

M M M 


© +a  © rrt  © © © 

as  a®  a a a 

cd  pfi  cd  *«  cd  cd  cd 
M W M M M 


asg 

cd  cd 
M M 


-3  © — © © 

«6®sa 

® cd  * cd  cd 
M MM 


14.1 

14.2 

11.2 

14.8 

24.8 

23.8 

24.1 

22.6 

00 

S3 

19.6 

22.4 

24.9 

24  3 
23.9 
24.0 

csi 

CVJ 

22.9 

23  8 

23.0 

23.1 

a oco 
^ CO  T44 
<N  (N  (M 

23.5 

rJ4 

<M 

23  3 

23.6 

24.4 

14.0 

14.0 

10.0 

12.0 

23.0 

23.0 

23.0 

23.0 

23.0 

23.0 

23.0 

23.0 

23.0 

23.0 

23.0 

23.0 

0 0 

S3  S3 

O 

co* 

23.0 

23.0 

23.0 

23.0 

O 

cd 

(M 

23.0 

23.0 

23.0 

05 

00 

rH 

00  q t^h 

co  oq 

CO 

co  <n  q 

oq 

**:  05  r-j 

q 

CO 

q q 

oi 

Ol 

rH 

id 

rji  id 

cd 

10  id 

id  id  id 

id 

Ti4  id 

id  id  id 

id 

id 

HJ4 

id  id 

q 

q 

q q 

O 

q q q 

q 

q q 

q 

q q , 

q 

q 

q q 

q 

q q q 

q 

q 

q 

q q 

CO 

co 

oq  0 

rlH 

•^4 

•^4  ] 

*^4 

*^*4 

^4  Tii 

TJ4  ^ ^ 

■^4 

^4 

^ TJ4 

<N 

oq  CO 

CD 

NCOW 

co 

q O 

CO 

T-H  ^ q 

CQ 

H-l 

^#4  CO 

q 

^ <m  q 

CO 

l— | 

00 

oa 

co‘ 

<^3  00 

00 

06  05  05 

d> 

05*  O 

d 

d 05  00 

05 

05 

d 06 

00’ 

05  00  00 

00 

OO* 

od 

od  od 

s i 


l*  U3 

s s 

<©  e> 


. >5 

)MS 

bo  CO  M 
a o © 
.-.  ^ J3 

>5  S ffl  © 

« S g § 

^2  Pi-G  ^ 
a ® u O O 

tn « a 00 
o <0 


~-§Q 
M O 

t-S  © 

bo 


. C © 

I o g | 
|U)^  • © 
I ,g  p,<5  g 
1 a S « o 

>5  3 

.•gffl 

2©^- 

huo  S 

CQ  O C/3 

§«ss  . 

p © ^^ 
^02 


■3  o 
00 


c a 
o o 
"C  'C 

od  cd 

6 d 
CO 


MM 

£3 

72  53 

g >J 

f-d 

C3  . 

P3Q 


co^ 


ss  3 


>>  © £ 2 2 

°C  gSS 

o S o O o 
® Cd  02  - - 
§Ph 


EH  H 


:8  Si 
:£  SFi 


8^  a 8 


2m 

o> 

cc  r( 
a o 
a>  o 
ac  ^ 

«w, 

S««f 

^3 
Wg^S^ 
^52g^ 

*h  © S cd 

od  © ft  ri  50 

OjGOflg 

Kpqo 


1 ' 3 

i 9 ° 

] O bo 

I bo -9 
|§3  f 

! gS  o 
igw^ 

1 ^ a .S 
1 o a c3 
C3  M 

dCC-o 
5«e  g ft 


» g 


; cc  m □ 3 g 

3 od  og  3 • - “ ^ 9 

si«la|p!| 


£ *«! 
s © 

|l| 


saw 
a ° . 


co 


> tr  ^ 
i»  ® 

:e  fc 


t-H  ^ ^ 

1 si 


EEEE  11  fe 


O - 1=3 

O o« 

bo  . 

*8  S^-o 

■3  • OJ 

Ph  -C  > a> 

20|m 

3 w 

m 


i>  /- 1>  f- 

fc- 

t-  p.F-f- 


i’S 

'2’2'2'S 

-a  -a 
© © 

© © 

jM 

MMMM 

MM 

M M 

1 tuo 

bo  bfi  bo  bo 

bfl  54) 

bn  be 

«+H  O 

OOOO 

O O 

O 0 

SW 

wwww 

ww 

WW 

^a 

a a a a 

a a 

a a 

A.S 

3P33 

n p 

■§  a 

a a a a 

a a 

a a 

© 

0 

0 0 a;  g 

© © 

05  05 

OM 

Ph  Ph  Ph  p-i 

MM 

MM 

^3  T3 
© © 
© © 
Mm 
bo  bo 
o o 

WK 

as 

3 3 

a a 
© © 
>H  Jh 

MM 


d3  rO  'O 
© © © 
© © © 
M M M 

bo  bo  bo 
OOO 

WWK 

aaa 

333 


MMM 


73  73  73 

CD  O)  Oi 

a>  _QC  <v 

MMM 
bo  bo  bo 

OOO 

WWW 

aaa 

333 

aaa 

<U  CD  QJ 

MMM 

MMM 


(-.5-1  Ch  Ph  Sh  f—t 
^©  _©  © © © © 
3 3 3333 

mm  mmmm 


33  33  33  3 

mm  mm  mm  m 


3 333  3 333  3 3 3 3 

m mmm  m mmm  m m m m 


4.J.  lasse<^,  T , . 220  2 3/io  tons  replaced  with. other  goods 

iVTi  tagged.  Labels  furnished  221  g tons  removed  from  sale.  Returned  to  mfrs. 

remove(j  from  sale.  Returned  to  mfrs.  222  3%  tons  removed  from  sale.  Returned  to  mfrs. 

7%  tons  removed  from  sale.  Returned  to  mfrs.  and  replaced  with  222  16  tons  removed  from  sale 

other  goods  224  2 n/20  tons  removed  from  sale.  Returned  to  mfrs. 


1 12 


6 « g 

. c 2 


c c 


u ^ s 
“So 

P3  M 


a a 


S'3 


a a 

^ o 

01  Ih 

be'*-' 


P Q 


^ a 

<p  o 

as 

$ © 

0) 

be  g . 

P 13 
o-  P. 

§ .2 

-S  - 

»3  ft 

2 £h  05 

2 tS*^ 
I § °0 
SS,£» 
le  -5 

g &a  a 

> '*-*  a 

t>  m 


d 0>  fcj 

S .a  P T3  - 
r ” p w 


13  ft  © H £ ® 

2 .(j  o^  3 *3 

S”p,  g •«  -a 
. - p.  <u 

*3  *3 

~ _ © © 

c ° ^ e ©P  cP 

gSUa-SsSsS 
Sjl^Soogog 
■ ® <2  f S ® . S . jjj 

bnPpbe  b®  ?«=  S 

p p s ©2s  ** 

3 +J  P — > bO  O ” ” 

p p s a a <a  o o 

r?i  r!  h 'd  ^ A c*  /“s  r* 


© ^ 

-3  a>  .. . 
+*  © w 
O -M 

°S? 


;p3®  © 

;**g  s 

i p ■**  pg 
> w o o 5 +j 
* be  W cq  cd 

o.S”  -1.S 

■ jgoSJ* 

■ 'P  pj  to  'P 
id  « 'P 

g£gg 


>d 

b ts » 

S®P 

P.+-* 


a CO  "5  Mg 
rP^^4Pp-PP!iP2 

k>Cj<Hk).S+Jtij!C5j(C 

1>  t>  MM 


o bb 

OSs 


p 

a « d 


ter  P © ^ -f 

^ « © _4  a 
P '*-*  5 © 
.03  © P 

H ® (<5  B 

cd  p v,  j. 

g»§2S 

p£»^ 

r&  Cd  3 6#  7b 

£ P -P'S  . 

2 d ° # p 

- ^ ^ (h 

•pPQSo 

O 


X >»  s -j»  • 

-II5 

sf*!: 

C ft  = S , 

p 

© 


..  +J-  o a 

S*«,§ 


(u 

_,  w ® 
d "P  © s 
,S«Sb 
d fc  2 J 

C"  ib  ™ 
^-pf-d 

^ u a © 


o 1 13“  I 

^la-s 
. '->  © 

s F-p 

2 >>  a d 

4!  rP  fn  2 


©W 


•pi*a 

cd  +f  v 
O © 
flOlh 


SC  ” 

sis 
_ a v 
°%£ 
c2  5 

M 


-+S 
©.S  p 
'O  © © 
S*d« 

6 fcS 


punoj 


paa^u-e 

-aeno 


puno^ 


paa^ui3 

-aeno 


*^uao  aad 
0an^sioj\[ 


a 

uopoodsuj 


IbioijjO 


3 


»§«ac5| 

|f Sosa 
a s-d  >, 

sh  cu  P fH  od  © 

“SMSfHiHW 
ft  O 


1 1 

1 1 

H 

a 

j 

1 

1 

1 

id  ! 

CD 

© 

0 

a 

O | 

03 

© 

PS 

0 

0 

a 

a 

! ^ 

is  i 

© 

0 

© 

0 

0 

s 

0 

r 

>>  * 

Ph 

w 

"te. 

s 

6 1 

I p 
! So 

1 a ; 

! Eh  | 

d 

d 

a 

Eh 

d 

O 

s 

O | 

Sh  j 

! §3 

! ta  | 
*2  | 

0 

O 

2 

be 

a" 

0 

O 1 

4->  1 

! fl 

1 0 ! 

be 

be 

0 

a 

m 

^ ! 
> 

1 03 
> 

!R  ! 

.a 

.a 

a 

>> 

a 

=8 

(V 

s s 

co  O 

P2  a 
pp  >> 


a)  t y 

a a 


w ^ 


§ S 


g 1 


aHg 

SoPd 

°<5^o  m 
ui  £3  72 

so? 

a n 
M 


im 


^ >. 
O a> 

KK 

a'g 

^ a 

a | 

a a 

PhW 


a a f=h 
mw 


MS 


Btfli. 

S ?5 
a 'S  a -p 


a^<  a^<  a^H 
PQ  W cq 


a£  a^  a^H 
PQ  W « 


o 

^JTS 
a o 
a .© 
0.^1 

o w 
O © 

be  ^ 

is 

Sts 

2* 
3 ^ 
o 


>>  . 1 

Is  i 

a~° 

O fl-c 

0.2  © 


•9  m 
Sa 

o 1 


1 x3 


S§11 


p fl) 

« 

« (U-'g 

g « i 
« ^ 

bfi'd'S  fl 

Si  44 


flaga 

Sh  +» 

' 60  ~ S'® 

C3,g  4) 


+j  *s  a 
^ 2 41 
w t*«3 


S3  Sh  C3 
•"  d)  <B 

£ £ g 

O 0)  M 

<2  'fl 

■“  ® 
- <u 


•fl  P fl 

« J B 

g G 
fl  fl  • 


fl  <-  c3  © o 
»n  m Hit® 

2 *>  -*  » 

a>  2 C A 

S^‘3  g « 

33  4)  £ © p 
•2  <2  bfl  bo  | 
Q M 


X S3  wTS 
CS  © p V 
0)  -»-»  .P  V 

S ^ 

M Sm  fi 

60  bo  fl 
'g  S3  fl  * 

s s * g 

tn  o ^ 

§ *1 
5|“a« 
°£|§? 


•-  .S  w 
2 6 ■ 
bJO  O fl  . fl 

X g fl  © 

£ a®  „ 

CO  __;  ft  w O 05 

1 © w c © ® 

fl  S P A 'S  * 

■<->  B ci  b **  H 


il  i 

fl  s3 

fl  o +j 

P i 

S O M ” 
© - 
flxgsS 

P A c3  <*< 
d go  - 
S3SS£ 
A fl  fl 
5* 

•°  © fl  ~ 
M ® Cj 


© c-l  o 

'fl  «$  rj 

© fl  r; 
£ as  o 

>>"3 


A*  £ 5'0'3’es 

S ofl  o ® S 1 

°£-gg 

— I S Hi 


fl  a 

aj  4) 

to  fl 


, 'fl  a>  <u 

!8f|0 


■a 

0)«b® 

X gfl.M 


O U 


.s|  8 

ficj'Sd 
cci  to  S 

P-fu 

O)  H 0) 

tQ  ,,  0) 
£§fl2 

c « o 

. S © 

CO  . 4- 

fl  ■©  a . 

-1 8 5 

C-  S| 
S c 68  ,p 

O^^fl 
u fl  03  '2 
—i  © 5 
bo  g 


W x Cfl  os 

M O Sh  ^ <D 

d (S  O J)S3 

—■  p O «H  K. 

U £ 


"Sgs 

d)  ? *H 

CO  bo 

S3  i* 

2 a « 

o2gS 

o "S 


p CO  , 

d>  s 


o a 


-fl  rs 

p 0, 

rf  « 

- S 


|5|sl 

ijfis 

d a S.5 

g « 5c  u - 

fl  vS>  — 

^ 6^  o -. 
,Do  fl  ' 


' 00 'fl 


-fl  5 

V o 
•r  2 


2 £- 
"“  C 'w 

4J  S.  <V 
9<H  J) 

fi  as  a 
-w  bo  « 

s p S. 

- — cS 


'fl  <l)  fl 

. a » 


— — 03 

® *3  h 
00  ° § 

M'fl'fl  W) 
tS  ® V 


S O ^ rn  W 

| a S s ® 

5 ..  ° O S 


os  CO  ^ 
JS  4) 

•?  W AS 
P W ® 

« o '5 

“ pi  a 

cS  s ^ 


V. 


■d  23®  oh 

8 • 

9 . 

fl  o ® 

c“=S 


Sg^l 

bod  ^ S 


“ S?® 

0**4 

fl£  2 ® 

^ fi  .5  ca 
^3  fl  3 3 


o d'Sfl  R 

_. 

^ w d) 

(D  C aj  'O  a) 

^ -2  ® w 

o fl  a a ss 

fl  h O Si  O 

U bO-H  O 4-1 

O 


£ «4S. 

2*5 

68  flffl 

© ® a 

B ® S 


D g © - 
.•°  pS 

’ « 2 p 

P -H>  C 


u 


-M  C ^ 

3 1 § 

53 « S 


.2  3 -M 
(-  O p 
-fl  Jh  0) 
p<  ^ 

« w t 

L*  p 

a)  j,  . 

^ V 

•'I  cd  (P 

2 22 
Q 


27.9 

28.0 

27.0 

26.2 

27.9 

10.5 

1 10.2 

10.7 

12.2 

CO 

o 

CM 

19.0 

Oil 

19.2 

19.9 

26.0 

o 

*p 

6vl 

26.0 

26.0 

o 

8 

O 

00 

12.0 

o 

o 

11.5 

22.0 

22.0 

12.0 

20.2 

20.2 

05 

CO 

CO  T-j 

CO 

r— 

CO 

J>- 

mH 

r- 

CO 

O 

id 

x> 

cd  i> 

id 

00 

c4 

cd 

cm’ 

id 

cd 

lO 

LO 

lO  LO 

io 

o 

O 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

CO 

id 

id 

id  id 

id 

(>i 

cd 

cd 

cd 

^5 

id 

id 

CO 

nj  go 

IO 

CO 

t- 

00 

m 

i>; 

CO 

°q 

00 

i> 

05  1> 

rH 

o 

cd 

oo 

00 

1-1 

1-1 

rH 

<u  ^ 
« 

Pn-e 


053 
O 3 
XI  O 
&* 

g« 

13 

3S 


o -e 
Wo 

fl  M 

S a 


sh  O 
° X 

52S 


3o 

Is 

is 


rt  ® 1 1 

Is  i 1 

O 

45  rn 

P ^ fH  ^ 

O rf  - * O 

6 

go  WO 

o 

« g.S 

.x 

§w  ^ |5 

‘3 

Sh 

O 

Wog  fl*  -r«S8 

«8 

>>  ® 


3«1  «i 


. ^ s 


Sh  fl 

QJ  cd 

IS 

Ph 


ip 


s s 


1 I 


SM 

Bb 

«8 fl 

.S3 

x& 

oi 


03  03 

KK 


CS  C3 

fifi 


&p 


TO 

V 

a> 

P fl) 
® 8 
flpH 


ft 

° "S 

° aS 

® • A - 

i“  gi* 

nSSa 

03  03  . O 

B 8 o B 

Bfl  60  03 

5 i>5 


ai 

•S°  o 
2-siW 

33  fl  Jj 

fl'3  QJ 

g.B« 

•30  o 
.9  * 
O 


o 


ft  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished  227  5 tons  withdrawn  from  sail 

!25  3 tons  removed  from  sale.  Returned  to  mfrs.  Refund.  See  page  20  228  700  lbs.  removed  from  sale 

!26  1500  lbs.  removed  from  sale.  Returned  to  mfrs.  Refund.  See  page  20  229  Refund,  See  page  20 


ii4 


cS  'S  “ 
S.2  g 


S a cd 
^ a a 

|Ss 

o ^ § 

.2  g o 

a 2 


a ft 


<13. S a 
'O  QJ  O 

g 3? 
u&2. 


P Cd  y 

S'"  2 

'»'  CD 


puno^ 


pao^uu 

-aeno 


puno^ 


paa^ire 

-aeao 


•}uaa  jad 
aanjsioj/^ 


a 

uoiioadsuj 


IBiaipO 


S3 

<v 

ag 

co  & 


r a 

KS 

«oS 

Jss 

“5| 

<« 

“ a'S 

■ft  ^ 5 

g o 03 

oO 

o 


heat 

mo- 

a 

03 

V 

© 

7? 

mo- 

ings, 

corn 

0.7% 

a 

V 

03 

CD 

B 

S3 

cj 

cj 

a _ - 

8 

o 

meal, 
fa,  sal 

>» 

© 

53 

3 

bd 

>» 

3 

c$ 

73 

cj 

at  mic 

meal 

t hull! 

■» 

o <d 

U 03 

s 

■*3< 

a a 

Q)  «M 
fli  ’ ^ 

73 

cj 

« 

U 

3 

o 

Sh 

ft 

£ 

© 

2a  g 

a 03  ° 

& © 

02  S 

03  ® 

<Q  a 

<4_l  d 

fi  CQ 
bx) 

>» 

3 

M 

CQ 

w 

cj 

3 

cj 

pQ 

W M 

III 

03  •'H 
Cd  4J 
O ® 

S ft 

oats,  co 
screenin 

o 

ft 

M 

o 

a 

“ a 

a 41 

O m . 

rolled  c 
ses 

es 

nd  oats 

^!g 
« ^ 

a 

<w  ^ 
cd  "g 

1 w 

TO 

ts  £ ° 

O <B  a 
O .ft  ® 

d*  ? 

2 a 8 ‘l 

O <d  m C 

g£S  £ 

U O 


CD  <13  " 
03  CQ  Cd 

cd  w 

•a  cd  a 


L<5  in  IA  lO  I 


C3  O 

° g 


|6 
CQ  5 

bo  © 


S 5 


SSi 


a o 

® B 


®?  a cd  .a 

™ 03  t-<  cd  03 

03  ^ £2  ^ 

a «<2  a cj 

C si  '“1  <n  cd 

cd  e c3  ~ (h 

mu  <J  u 


cd  cd  o 

03  xi 

£ ® 
^ be 

a £ a 

® X2  a 

8«,g| 

55  £ 0,2 

u 


sfl 

5 

it  w 

Cj 

GS  © 

|£ 

" si 

m 


U5U3U3U3  ^ lo  lo  K3 

QfiPfl  Sgfipp 
cd  cd  cd  cd  _ cd  cd  cd 

(Doidiai^siiDaia) 

sssssssss 

cdcdcdcdeficdcdcd 

mmmmo  mmm 


cd  CQ 
<13  Ch 

a «> 
S £ 
<13 

a 

<13  ft 


O ft 
U 


© © © O © o 
©©©©©© 


t>> 

cd 

y 

CD 

a 

o 

a 

>( 

s M 

Wgj 
cd  O 
ft  d 

ft  >3 
cd  <13 

5W 


1 o 
aO 
o d 
173  03 

C3  ^ 

wo 


fi*  fe 
• fe  £ 

fi  >-g 

w6° 


5 -£ 

g OS'S 

O 03 

TOg 

£&T 


gE 

ffl  cd 

s! 

A -73 


be  E3 

g2op 

°-e<«w 

►.n  a ® 

03  Q3  Cd  fl 

a ode 


c?  a 
3ft 

SI 

aa 

•Si 


w m > > 
o fl  “ “ 

cd  cd  C fi 
> > « * 

K«S6 
c5S 


3 ! 

X3 

5fl  1 
Cl  ^3 

"S  Q 

PM 

M J* 


oOS 


§ §«<«- 

vi  m ' y ' x 

SSss 

sd  S3  CO  £Z2 

opoc  . . 

03  03  td  tri 

S3  cdHH 


t>i  >1  I o 

aa  ‘ o 

OO  | , 

>>$16  is 

oEHh0  Jg 

EhoToTu, 

.g  g n a)  ►> 

e O Pa+ju^ 

03  co  oq  a c s « 
03  03  03  § S !>  ^ 

03  g ® W ^ ^ 

Ms§«gS| 

|00^  g 3 g 

03  . • 2 Eh  OiPh 

P4<!<<5  m 


s §§  si 

s te  8 Sg^g8g  S 

> 8 888iofetsi  S 

I CO  Jt-  Lft 

nil  l 

u i 1®  is  is® 

i i 

2 d Cfo  <33  ft  © ® ft  ft 

Si  -h<  -+«'0<^hh§151  5 

0 12d  lfl  lA  tn  1ft  © lid  £R 

I® 

i! 

iSS  ^ 

!88  I 

S 03 

« d^H 

'O  h-l 

a^S 

o 

K >3^ 


g 

<J  'O'O 

03  §3  03 

g PhPh 

>:  e e 

a o o 

£h  W tfi 

Q -oo 

^ O Sh  e 

- MOO 


ns 

fi 


CO 

03 

fi 

'd  03 

03  03 
03  U 
PR  O 

03® 
2 ►» 
0'S 

w-§ 

03  W 


O 03 

O o 


tH-d  _ 

QJ  QJ  rO 
C a)  oj 

w 

0323 
a o o 
° td  ^ 

Vi  ^ ixi 

P l-H 

*C  ks  bjo 

|3  > 

sss 


<d 'd  "S  "d 

a>  a)  qo  o 


'O 

<D 


_.,o,d 
5 51  O 
CG 


a 

§.2  CQ 

o<  p a 

gS03 

o^g 

03  02  O 

a a 

« fi 
Q 


03  S 03  ® 

^ a-a  a 


a afi  a< 
Sa « a a a 

od  cd  a os  03  a 

03  03  ® 03  © 03 

02  03  03  033  03  (/J 

t-i  f-<  f-<  ch 

00S00° 

MKWawa 

_03  03  _0)  03  03  _03 

"3  "B 

fi  fi  fi  fi  Q Q 


’ Ph 

S m 
aa  a o 

03  3 C3  M 

ce 

<D  a 03  r-H 

w cc  03  O 

sss§ 

wwwg 

.2  2.2a 
’P  ’P  "R  g 
Ofifi<! 


IT5 


G “ 5 o 

*.£  2 a 


o £ 


£'? 


.£  d 
d <D 

be  S 


0)  4> 


n 

o 
- o 


c ® S 
3^ 


„ n S 
•%  S 
« 5 -d 


U 4J 

bx-P  p 


a;  ^ 

6.2 


g _ 1 
^ w 

O ?H 

O (1) 


0>  t-H 

£§£ 

-d  £ Q 


S £ 

R d 


o o o 


d bo  to  Q 

<u  fl  +j 

0)  ■"  Cj  B 

tfi  G O d 

G d <» 

O <B  <B  - UJ 

t>  > O U £ 

0?»0(j 

O UM 


. i a M- 

io  LO  io  £ 

5 « fi  ft  fl  d g 

O W » ® M © ^ 
W Cti  Ctf  Ctf  02 
d fi  ^ 

r-  r— , CD  (D  (D  o <0 

£ § 6 £ £s£ 

g E*  d d d o ^ 
O mmmo 


m ^ , 
bo  o 
G O 


d <d  1 

s s 


d ^ 

C_  ^ 

o <D 
w 

s! 

0)  +J 


o £ £ o 
“St>  O' 
02  P 


d1® 

« « O 

O 


O +j  +j 

£ d d 

^ W M 


cj®® 

w Q Q 


- 0)  0) 

£ £ a 

odd 

U M 03 


— j « c 
.2  « o 

e -S  tj 
g§o' 

aS° 

“»S 

OB  ^ C 

a O 3 
Sd 
d 


£gg 

*S«, 

^ S 

■®  £1 

9 

d O 


W^'o,  - m 

5?  - ® 2 « 


S*£ 


. X H 'G  >> 

P "SdS 

flS  c 


d g q,„  « 

2 £ a*50 

> 03  ® 

P d > . 

. | S g « 5 

■“  o d ftf 
42  -e  o 'S  § <u 

2 s a is* 

Ph  P 


P>  ra 

3 S s 


^ o d d 

P<  g 41 


4)  9 £ 


c-o 


N CD  QOS 
CO  rH  c<i  in 


lO  IfllO 


Id  <M  lO  ^ ■ 


O O' 


I > 
1 co 

! a 

i d 
: > 
. iw 

3 |g 

fcjo  1 o 

jSSfi 

o3H 

a ' 


o S g I o 
42  S5  42 
w co 

3 ^ 5 08  g 
n oW 
w o...  o w 


J>S5  si  o o £ ® 

bog^ 

l£lal 


cc 


^ a>  o 

So 


t_^  Sh 
W r-1 

g.-d.s 

bo  O »h 

flP^glg, 

S»8  2 | 

a^3  s 

a)  m a> 

-o  ^ S 

<v  d ^ 


P O 

<s  a 


d o 


6 


o 

M<J0 


a I 


o p cl 

cl 

d-« 

®‘«a 

■pdbj 
d'S  3 
0«,Q 
co 

Ih4^^ 


bo  d ^ 

!§i 

i«S5 


jSvo 


§ fefeS 


^ ^ « dj  ^ 

fc  fc  g S8  @ 


fefefeS  Si 

Isgs  si 


§ rf'g 

a ’3® 

r°  >> 

O • tH 


»wi< 

Q 


ft 

3.2 

On 

Oo 


dQ  o 


66c 


>?5 

in 

d 

w 


O O O a 
’O'O’d  r 

o>  <U  OJ  4i 

x x x *r 

d d d d 

Eh  E-i  E-tO 


d d 

fifi 


<D  <D 

<X>  CD 

CO0Q 


d os 

cb  d> 


0)  i) 

oo 


O^H 

zrs 

2 o 

fflW 


4-»  d 

>n  d 

w 


OJ  C)  0J 

OJ  <v  (D  CO 

, pH  pH  pH 

O 

a 


d d 


o O^H 

WW^ 


^ * * 
o o o 


;g<i  <!<!<!  <c 
w 


d 03 


a 2 0 a g 

d bo  bo  so  o 

O 


" >. 
>»  G 
G d 
d 40 

< ^ 


■<#  «t  Tj<  ^ 


0 0 0 9 


4)  9 9 OJ 
42  ,9  45  ^ 
fl  « 8 « 

4)  4)  CD  9 


S £ £ 

9 9 9 

££4: 

'd  -d 'd 

43  43  43 
> > > 
9 9 9 

£ £ £ 

« 4i  4) 


ce  » a 0 

S S S 
9 9 9 


d 

d 

® Ph 

^ b*> 

bn 

- d 

.so 

4- 

wg 

- H 
co  d 

aw 


HiHHHH 

rH  «5  C<5  00  tO 
CC  Q0  GO  00  Q0 
00  _ . 
.©999 

« ns  83  'd 

d 4)  4 44 

M 4 4 4 4 
J 42  42  ^ ^ 
h S S 8 8 
rr  "S  "3  ® 9 
«« 

^ ^ * 
<B  ^ 4J  ® 4J  ,2 

I dill s 

^ g £ £ £ £ 

-|2222 

S-o'S’2'2'2 

•S  2 > > ® | 

J 5 9 9 9 9 
£ £ £ £ £ 
•6  ® £ 2 £ ® 
ho  rr,  ® ® ® ® 

So  C s S S £ 
rrt  5 o o © o 

gs#  ^5 

^3  eo  r-  m rr  n< 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918  (continued) 


Il6 


S * 

_ O CO 

S c 

Id73 


” 5 o 
^3  M 


fl  a 


© .9  a 

CD  CD 

p 4J  o 

punojj 

13.3 

12.9 

o 

25.3 

ru 

ia.4 

u.i 

22.2 

14.9 

15.0 

14.7 

11.5 

CO 

d 

tO  lO  CO  CM  CO 
dHHHHO 

q 

d 

2 g £ 

paa^uc 

t- 

o 

o 

o 

O 

q o o 

q 

O 

o 

o 

q 

oqoooo 

q 

Wftp, 

-^n0 

cm’ 

o 

d 

i-i 

to 

CM* 

ddo 

CM* 

(M* 

CM 

t-H 

d 

d 

05  d d d d d 

d 

CsJ 

CO 

njioos 

q 

,_, 

o 

q 

°o 

00  00  CM  oo  q !>■ 

© d 

ctoI 

punoj 

CO 

CO* 

CO 

CO 

CO*  CO  to 

cd 

d 

td 

CM* 

CM  d CM  1— i rH  — H 

d 

O H 

paa^uB 

i>. 

o 

to 

o 

o 

vo  q q 

00 

00 

q 

O 

q 

oqiotoiow 

o 

w 0) 
a 

-anno 

CO 

CM 

CM 

rH  CM  ^ 

CM 

<M 

cd 

CM  CM  t-H  rH  rH  rH 

d 

•^.uao  aad 

Oi 

CO 

Oi 

q 

rH 

q cm 

05 

C5 

to 

00 

Nco^ioqoj 

CO 

ean^sioj^; 

CO 

d 

d 

d 

d 

(M*  rH  od 

d 

o . 

d 

rH 

05 

CM 

d ^ cd  th  qo  oo 

cd 

9g*S 


£ p 


C TO  .O 

°S8 

w 


£ 

8 « § 

f§ 

£ c j * 

he 

rfS* 

<4H  r-H 

SgS 

V* 

m 5 - 
-S’®  C 

O'®  ^ 

a?  ,q 


o o ® rs 

u 4)  o 

2 -gS 

«i  a! 
« o! 
e3  to  .£ 

-?£  K 


a 

(3  3 

h, 

to  ho 


p g 

5 o 

v 5 

_;3 

£ £ 

a 


i £ £ ' 


_.  ° E ft 

'O  V ho  00 


Xs 

CD  g ^ 

cd  ^ > 
S ^ o 

~ <D  «— < 

A to  of 
'w  ho  - 


TO  fi 

° 03  $ 
TO  TO  J 

es  f! 
tJ  S £ 

a)  to  - 

X 

© A>  “i 


g.g§ 


T3  cd  cd  •" 
<u  <b  a)  ra 
TO  rCj  d ^ 

ri  i . C ht) 


CD 

.gr 
H eg 


© TO 


^ w cc  2 

3 g ®;  ° * 


3 5SS.8* 

W oo  S3  O P E 
2 t-  ~ © TO  ~ 

s --s 

.p§72  .2 

5 "a  $ >d  g 

S 0) 


0) 

'd 
s « 

§S 

W C 
v 
T3 


<u  c o 
S=  s 
u2  g 

TO  C -ft 

TO  K 


u o £ 


d-§ 
d TO  C fl 

8.2  g * 
o M 


cd  >>  cd  *-<  cd  ' 

(D  C £ O rj 

TO.SgUg 


X! 

C 

O TO 
O TO 

e 


ho 

d 

c a 

TO  J* 


p 

Pi  - 

ss 

„S 

£ d 

5 © 

O <13 


W TO 


he'd  a 


£ © 


_ S3 


TO  TO 

o 


£ 

w ^ ^ ^ ^ 

m c3  *15  oj  c3  ^ 


,2  CQ  ^ OO  00  OO 

r-,  OO  *>  l> 

dio  la  m m 

m D rfi  Q fi  0 


" CD  ~ CD  CD  CD 

£ £ £ £ £ £ 

O TO  O TO  TO  TO 

O xu  u m in  m 


a 

uorpaasuj 


l^PWO 


m ui 

fc  g 


o 

a 

o 

<D 

u 

E 

frn  TO  TOi 

3P3 

TO 

A 

3 

03 

PQ 

p 

O 

TO  TO  TO 
<S  TO  03 

w 

w 

b 

33  33 
'333 

03  S3  03 

H 

hi 

d 

a a 


j i o 

C3  ^ <D  P< 

^ > C ,22  C3 
m w o i *r  a 

^Saj-Sl 

IwfilSSrf 

<2i  « 2t2,-H  B 

. • ^ £ a --  p 

. O ,,C^  g TO 
OO  n ub  °'C 
og  c-'  ^ ^ „ “ 

°®  ^ flr  a TO 

o^^iS  ^ toM' 
.9  g to  § O Sag 

. to  . j ® .: 

£■§ r 


111 


00  CQ  Q 3?  9Q  C 

lllil; 


@ isi  i i 


g 

o6  So  5 S S S fe 


~ C <D 

aH.9 
ga  to 

CTO  g 
to  Cl ■ g 

a w 


rS  © TO 
O 


dOa 

g M 


'O 
to 

TO 

TO 

0 

CO 

1 S 

Ah  W 


g.2AH 

•siw 


A 0-9.2 


fe  JZ5 
Ah 


'C 

Ah 

TO 

” ho 
O o 

ww 

'O'C 

c a 
c o 

9 9 

^ to 2.2 

^KAfl 


A 

a 

TO 

N 

o ® 
O 

ho  ho 
a o 

3W 
i§  X 
g3 
£ g 

o Ah 


°c,0 

*1—1  Q3 

P»>  TO 

C kA 
TO  £* 
P.r^  bo 

|sfi 


p 'd 
>>  o c 

'd  aj  «j 
to  od 


>>  T3 

a v 

TO  ® 

ft  Ah 

9 To 

o 'd 

°gS 

6,0  o 

.9  TO^ 

5 "a  « 

a|s 

M O 

.9^W 
~\co  a 


i'S 
! v 

, i i I ^ 

rCrCrCrCrCrO 

CJ  O (U  o Qi  q;^ 

a;  O)  O)  Q)  Q)  <u  p 

pH  pH  f^i  f^i  g 
<D  o ® a>  ^ <D 


' 23  23  P 23 

. 'O'O'O'O  % 
o 


o 


■3® 

Tk  «^= 


o 


fc  To  = 
O 5 

O 


t>>  P 

-o§:  , 

gS'd'd  c 0 n H - 
§ § TO  TO  TO  sW 

o C3  TO  TO  TO  TO 

Q®  <u  w <8  m 

TOM'CP-iS-iP-iS-i*. 

S®hh00oo5 

|000^^| 

.*^'5  t OOOO^ 
>H  ^ x:  p:  p:  p;  c 
TO  TO  O TO  TO  TO 
tjtjnfiBas 
. - g O O O Ohh 

•|  gwwmwmffl  * 

£odb  ; 5 ^ i = O 
O 


it  7 


dg 

«CH 

a>  © *0 

tO  M © 
C * « 


.c3 

M © © 

a 2S 


°SS 

s ^ 

3 H)  O 
£2£ 
O O 


tc  w 

OvO 


CD  CD  CD 

P QQ 

tn  mm 


ft  o 
ft  ° 
fe  _ 


O 2 

-2  a 
& 

a 

0 

0 

Xu  d 

cd  cd  © 

u xi  © 

O . 

^ -4-) 

O 'd  ^ rd 

W +J  0 0 0 

U r^J  O , 

. © W 

^'cS 

tn 

£ ^ C 

cl  Id  .a  d 

>i  A 

rQ 

g ” a a a 

d © d © 

o d E <o 

g 

►*  K0  Cl  ^ S-I 

bud'  © © © 

Sh  " &-»  K2  . 

60  S S 

o3  * 

>d  t-  © © © 

d © j2  , 

-g  £ 

c • d d d 
S d 

w £ to"  ° o o 

£ © d10  1 

© 8 +j  d 

T,  c if,  o c 

qj 

bo  © d d d 

cd  S cd  C ^ 

a. 5 

ft  rj 

>.o  tn 

B=;  - m +j  +j  +j 

■“  wft  C, 

22  0 

O 0 

ft  ® cd  ft  ft  '-? 

■ be  r-i  cd  cd  cd 
«*  cd  O 03  03  03 

5|S3a 

o 

w 

M g 

. d . . . 

C d 

cd  ”* 

&S  © 

ai  "T1 

flijS 

© _d  5 
"C  "3 
■o  g-g 

■ "w  - K , 


bo  © 

c ft 

C ft 


ni  es  © 

lH  © "*. 

cd  £ es 


CC  M 

rfft  6c| 


ft  4-.  © 

o — d 
cd  cd  S 
(h  m cd 
O 03 


0 0 
a a 

cd  cd 
tn  m 


© jH 

a I 

rtf  60 

© 

© ^ 


o do. 
U 


ss„-g 

0Qsl 

W 02  o 

2 Ctl  C3  73 
) 0)  . 
2 < 1)00“ 

i a a g £ 

m3 


CD  CD  CD 

PQP 


0 0 0 
a a a 


-t->  ft  © 
cd  £ 
© . « 
rj  W TO 

£ 6f  o 

•S  s 

c ® - 

d ^ cd 
o © o 
^ to  © 
0 


ics  cd  — i , 

°°  a © i 

« a » 
p^ev 
■ s°  g 

cd  to  “ *» 

© o P © 

2s£-  a 

cd  o ~H  © d 
03  O 03 


. ft  o © 

Sf  £ 

! § Q-d 

j2  w J 

cd  w 

« 

S o o 

a as 

* td  o 
03  O 


a ap  §flP' 


CQ  ^ 0 

.02,0  02 
2 Cd  £ 

■t?  2 *£$  ° 

Cu  0 CO  +J 
(D  Cd  H (D  +J 

gules 

t>  03  t> 


d cd 

2 d 

ft  © © 

£ S« 


12.3 

11.7 

10.0 

r*^ 

05 

10.6 

10.4 

CO  o 

O ft 

9.9 

CO 

14.9 

14.9 

21.5 

oq  o q 

<N  CO  <>3 
<N  CM  C<1 

CO 

00  05 

oc  co 

17.5 

12.8 

22.1 

21.0 

19.1 

20.3 

10.2 

12.1 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

c> 

o o 

o 

in 

o o m 

q in  q 

q 

q q 

q 

in  o 

q 

q q 

q q 

O 

o 

e? 

_ o 

05 

05 

05  05 

o 

s 

ci  ci  d 

C<1  <N 

co 

cp  IQ 
rH  i — 1 

in 

cd 

cp  ad 

C5  05 

in 

o 

CO 

in 

CO 

i>  05 

05 

CO 

oqinw 

<M  CD  o 

q 

co  q 

q 

•rjH  q 

in 

r—  LT5 

r-  co  1 

CO 

e4 

<n  c4 

(M* 

^ in 

in  co  co 

in 

co 

«a-  tn 

CN  cd 

o 

o 

o 

in 

in 

in 

in  in 

O 

o 

loioirj 

m in  q 

q 

O q 

q 

O q 

q 

q q 

q o 

c4 

CO 

<N 

rH 

CO 

tj5 

^ ^ ^ 

rji  Tj^  Tji 

in 

in  ^ 

Htl 

nj5  co 

in 

in  cd 

cd  cd 

in 

00 

CO 

rH 

in  05 

05 

O 

Ocoh 

(NNN 

th 

q oo 

in 

i>  q 

o 

co  q 

^ °5 

Ci 

■5^ 

00 

«3 

r—t 

Tl? 

i— 1 

co 

05 

CO 

co  in  c4 

rH  rH  i— 1 

CO  05  05 

co 

00  co 

O 

00 

o 

00  00 

rH 
rH  rH 

3* 

•3  © 


o 

U PH 

W 

bU^ 
d ft: 

. 

•ft  ft 

6 

S£ 

O 

s 

«8 

a 

to  03 


£ wago 
.2 

4->  OCm  ^ 

*h  rs.  O ^ 

g 

§ ss  8 

3 g£  g 


s , 


©o 

K*> 

0 rQ 

a f3 


o o 

S2  0 ^ ' 
20  . d 

£ft<l.S 

§~  ft  & 

03  4W 

£ gg 

S gg 


i i i . 

ilia 

TO  | ’o 

ft  j tS 

|>lg  © 

2 i-1  B02 

6 

o 

a|  6.2 

wSO'3 

. Ph 

© 

ft 

a 

6 '©  6£CD 

r d ^ 

d 

ft  ^ 

0 I— I CD 

og  S S 

03 


O 

,5S 

I'aia 
« s w 

<3  03 


|2h 

Ssw 

0>H  . 

*h  O 


05  ra  CO 


i ft 


>>  O 

a° 

■Ofl 

O cd 

I<?  0 

a a 

ft  ft 
££ 
o i 


© © 

’>  ’> 
02  02 
a a 

od  cd 
> > 
RH 
© aT 
o o 
ft  ft 
>1  !>> 
cd  cd 

65 

SS 

o o 
© © 
CO 


o 
. ft 
ft  >> 
S cd 

So 

|a 

§ s 

So 


I 11 


1 I! 


fe  fei 
£ £: 


Cd  05  J 

s I; 


^2 


5 ^ 


o g 

^ S 

. cd 


o c> 
02  02 
02  02 
03  03 


a}  ° 00  > 

U VH  irH  P 


.s 
02  ^ 


g*  •'O 
5 a a) 

° Sph 


«5  W 
o 

10  -M 

wa5 

m 

u 

.d 

^g 

73  T3 

QJ  0 

0 0 

dd 
© © 
© © 

in  tn 

n ba 

« g | 

.2 

© 

RR 

bo  ft 

S5 

SO  a 

o 

'/>* 

lo 

•3« 

MM 

aW 

a W 

W 

a a 

ft  6 

do 

tq 

a 

a 

T3 
© 

© 

© “j  djj 


^ d « 

g-9  a 
ST5 

03  oo'rt 

•30  a 
2 ft  o 

H fSTt 


So 

>.  a 


'cd 

’«  tm 


© 

e3 

fl  © „ 
#«  E-i  © 
'B  oo 


a 


C3.g 


cd  cd  cd 
O O O 
© © © 
h tn  f-i 

cd  cd  cd 
,C.G.CrH 

ooo  « 

rcJrQrQ^H 

fl  c a . 

cd  cd  cd  M 
O 

BO'CM 

<lj  a;  qp  p*i 

NPhPr  g 

bfi  bfl  bo  S 

oooS 

MWMq 

cd  cd  cd  cd 

a ci  a a 
o o o o 


© © © 
dflc  a 


_!  © 
© 

Ph  >> 
^ S 
•3° 

P «i 

X © 
cd  +-> 
a ci 

.a  «s 
oS 


cd  G3 

cl  d 
o o 


.a  r— ( 
rS 

o fS 
© 

C5l-i 

S“a 
^ . 


S § 

•d  i-j 

ss 

do 


© © 
d d 
-d^J 
o o 


n8 


c 

.9 

+j 

o 

a> 

Q. 


g ® a 


c ^ ft  9 

a)  ih  r.Ti 

9 c 

© 

to  g 

a S . 


' 3 rL 

O CO 


9 d 
3 <u 


43  £ ® 

O -3  M 


M 

d ft 


©.d  a 
d 0)  © 
3 if  u 
6»® 


(H 

'g+i  s 
£<ft  ° 

w (U 

a 


puno^ 


paa:*uB 

-aeno 


putlog 


paa^uB 

-jBno 


9uaa  aad 
aan^sioj^ 


-H  © 

d g 
d 5 

9 d 
B d 

<M 
■4_i  d 

d d 
© c3 


(1)  > 
<D  o 

fed 


ga 
8 - 


rtf  & 

c 2 

d 2 

£ « 


“g 

a 

20 


9 j*1 
2-3 
a d 

42 


_ 0> 
9S 

c -1  fl  1 

,£< 
to  . [* 
toi; 
ft  c3  +?  i 
•q  w o , 

>2! 

' t» 1 
w • 


Cu  .— i Cu  Cfl 

«aJS 

3 gS?  g d 

8§339 
S g * a5 
■S  2 2 ° 

<1-1  o.'H  c3 

g ® d ga 

•*j  .a  -3  -2  d 

c d d 0) 

s®#« 

2B2S 


u9 


03  to 

29 

b* 


O f* 

© o 
43 


x ii-g 

d d 2 
ad  to  © 


c-  -C  w cti  ■d 

© S3  a>  © 

Q©  Id  c © 

w rt  C to 


Cu  -r  . o 
d.o 

O y O g 

5 " “1  * £9  & 


a >,  5 

3 CtH 

-Md  3 t~ 
9 2 o 
2 OtcH 


o « d 

+J  to  <13 


3 d (H 


d d 
03  ft 

to  K 


g S9  S: 

d 5 d 5 

CO  « W 


<1  ffl  co  O 


rH  « c -3 

g a s +j 

cj  . d H d 
^ w 11  bfl  ^ 
to®  c ® 43 

to  d fl  w P 
^3  w 03  ^ 

3 r*  g 2 ? d 

o ft  9 p .©  © 

d bd  s-,  vi 
to  ? 42 

to  ®<  O .03 
-3  to  J S to  +-> 
d dS  3 3 
,1)  IH  5 ^ lH  ^ 
d £ a fao 

C 0)^5  Jh 

<p  a bo 

9 fe  ° to  g 

rip 

o -d  & fi  — d 

+j  <1)  3J  D 

-m  <i>  n 'd  w ^ 

O wU.rt-H  w 


9 -2  « 

SfjOd 

9 

O +J  ^ 
— J O aj 
d - 3 iJ 

2 d ' 9 

Sd5  - 

a 

d 'S  w O 

to  03  50 

3 C » g” 

§SP§ 
«3  g-d 


a 

o 
® pG 


s 1 


2 » i 

ft  to  1 


COO 


d o 
w 3 

^9- 

“ d 

1-1  co : 

co  Csi 

c-  tr- 
io 10 

Qfl 

to  to 
cti  c$ 

+J  03  03 

9 a a 

to  d cS 
XU  CO 


^■5- 

>d  >1 
03  ft  4-> 
ft  Cj 


cj  3 
d ^ 

B 9 c 


d C-^ft 

03  tn  C y 

d « ft  o d rf 

(4  3 K.  U +J  ^ 

o > o 


1 10 


as 


LO  O OO 
HQ  OOO 


O q 

Xti  O 


OOO 
o o d 


IO  LO  LO 


d i 

0 ' 

ui 

d 

0 

to 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

! 0 

1 a 

0 

0, 

2 i 

ft  1 

S 1° 

’r3 

9 

M 

n 0> 

1 ft 

d 

§ i 

°Sft  . 

o3  3 

c3 

«2  d 

I 3 

S3 

S3  I 

® ° g d 

S 2 

si 

s 

43 

-M 

ft  0 

ft  9 

g s 

I'd 
! ft 

9 

d 

'O  t3 

S ft 
1-1  0 

toft  rQ  Q 

- 9 ft° 
0 2^=8 

O 

PhS 

3 d“ 

d“ 

a"! 

^03 

JZ5 

6 6 

|S 

0 

co 

0 S 

co  .2 

4^  ~ O <D 

0 g 

leg 

fl 

0 

00 

03-08 

<8 

U1 

r *4 

.ft0* 

03  03 
to  CO 
£3 

03 

QQ 

si 

.»  to  gj  S3 

fe.S  |o 

« . 

S'd 
S g 

0 

W 

1— 1 ^3 

SSw^ 

p4« 

w 

c3 

1° 

a 

gW 

© • 

9 52  ft'd 

® a a >». 

w 

cod 

^ CO  ^ O 

a 

uopoadsuj 


V*PWO 


II 


® g » o 
00 


a as 
a 8^ 


'#Oi  03  1ft 

<?q  n 6.1  fc- 


>» 


a 8 
^•2 


is  a <j 


03  trt 
03  03 

7h  d 
Ph 

>> 

Sh  bD 

Qffl 

d d 
‘3  '3 


-i’U 

11 
'd  ^ 
s to 

3 § 
1 1 

0 

Ih 

ft 

43 

+s 

O 

SH 

ft 

43 

0 0 

ftft 

4343 

0 

ft 

43 

0” 

«9oT 

d 03 

5® 

2^ 

toft 

a 0 

"s* 

0 a 

3^ 

to 

3 

M 

to 

to 

S 

CO 

to 

to  to 

S3 

CO  CO 

to  to 

to 

3 

tn 

to 

ft  ft 
33  2 

S ^ 
-s 
® 33 

ftS 

t-i  tn 

03  03 

to  to 

52S9 

to^< 

d 

d 

d d 

d 

dS 

^ 03 

ft 

d 

3 

3 

33 

3 

Cj 

Sh 

«« 

3 

M 

i-d 

1 1 

1 1 'd  [ 

fd  ® 

T3 

h3  TP 

'd'd  « 1 

gft 

© 

© 

o>  ^ 
a»  0? 

© © ft 'd 

ft  >, 

ft 

ftft 

Et,  Eli  © 

^ © o? 

^‘S 

>> 

© © 2 ft 

m m 3 

2° 

3 

^0 

53  d ft  to 
®5ft  0 

CO  d, 
n 

ft 

OS 

73  ft 

(Tt  H 


PQM 


H Sh  P fl) 

QMD  O)  S 
bfl  hQ  g p 


Sfti 

||| 

a co 

43^  S3 


Mpq  WPQOM  g j 


1 19 


C w 
.2  © 
cj  m 
(h  “ 

bo  a 
o 

■a  g 
c e 

3 - 
o to 


C 

(h  _ 

o w 

w be 


a co 

<w  © 

w 


be  oj  £ 

© 

*w  to  a 


> o » 


+->  S3 

“a  g 
j*  a © 

to  © p 


j£.5 
£ £ © 
a °£ 


M o 

rH  rH  d 8 . 


n g a - 
8QQ  gap 


n c C ° ^ 

°ess  3 


a 

© 

p 

*s 

. W 50H  C M 

^ « <s  ^ 5 «s 

'd 

<D 

a h 

a « a 

(U 

^ © © 

© up  pk 

© 

a 

a 

w 

a £ £ a u £ 

CJ 

o3 

a a g a 
5 is  a is 

u 

S-» 

O CO.  03  O 03 

o 

03  <J  <J 

<2  3 


-a 

2 c 


05  05 

CO  CO 
CO  ZD 
lO  LO 

PP 


© © 
£ S 


IO  ™ 

o 

A £ 


£ <2 
73  <i 


|gl  PPP 

a 


-:es 

a ^ 
a © © 


© © © 
a © a a S £ £ 


. a 

IQ  © 

a;  -a 


rt  o ® 
a e 2 
© £ £ 

© * 

§ a £ 

Jd  © M 

±j  Z,  © 
o £ to 


°o 

12.2 

CO 

11.0 

11.6 

10.3 

11.8 

12.4 

11.7 

13.2 

12.0 

12.6 

12.5 

10.6 

11.0 

11.5 

11.2 

13.0 

22.4 

11.8 

q q q 

odd 

9.8 

26.1 

! 

o 

q 

o o q q 

o 

q 

o o 

q 

o 

q 

q o 

o o 

O 

CO 

wcoco 

CO 

<a 

! 

c4 

d 

d d d oo 

oo‘ 

d 

O P 

d 

d 

d 

d d 

©j  d 

s 

d 

05  05  05 

d 

3$ 

o 

q 

nr 

OCOHJO 

CD  ‘ 

q 

q rH 

q 

tq 

q 

q q 

rH  rH 

q 

ID 

oo  q q 

q 

rH 

00 

d 

04 

CO  cd  CO  TlH 

co‘ 

d 

d I-H 

d 

"" 

d 

d d 

d rH 

eo 

d 

d d d 

d 

HH 

t 

LO 

q 

loioioo 

q 

O 

q O 

q 

O 

q 

q q 

q q 

00 

q 

q q q 

q 

q 

j 

d 

c4 

(N  ci  (N  W 

d 

d 

d rH 

rH 

d 

d 

d d 

rH  d 

CO 

rH 

'Hrn’rH 

rH 

q 

q 

rn  q q q 

q 

q 

q rH 

q 

q 

t. 

hh  q 

<n  q 

lO 

rH 

q q q 

q 

q 

tP 

CO* 

■s£  CO  TlH 

d 

d 

d QQ 

cd 

to 

'HH 

lo  d 

00* 

p 

rH 

CO  ^ oo* 

CO 

d 

1-1 

1-1 

tH  rH 

rH  rH 

1-1 

rH 

a > 
> >. 
>>  *■> 


i i i 

i i i 

• 1 i 

i i 

i i 

i i 

i i 

i i 

i i 

i i 

i i 

i i i 

• i > 

■ i > 

> i i 

• i i 

• i i 

• I i 

> i i 

i . i 

• i * 

■ i ■ 

• I i 

! 6 ! 

• i i 
> i * 

! O j 

• • 

• i i 

’ ! 

■ i i 

© >» 
P S 


sj 

C3& 


ffi  W Cfl  w 

© © © © 

h H H i< 

a a a a 


a a a a 
a a a a 

o3  os  a a 


*6 

go 

<u  bfl 

Eh  .3 

ojS 


occ;3  o 


a.2  > a 
Ph  N Ph 


o r 
ft  o 
a0 

a be 

-S.S 

aa 

"•s 
o be 

-£.a 

^ g 

a £ CD 

W gra 
a PP  m 


Ms 

r a 
o a 
oa 
© 


► 

r a 
o a 
0-3 


|^ad 

°M  OQ 

a. 


o M ’ 

oc 

pH 

'to  " 05"P 

OQ 

jf;  o a a o a a 
a n a a ~c  a ^ 
HPh  mPh  W 


aO 

oS  . ' 

SPh- 


N r 

o o 

flD 

M 

a 


£fP 

a a 

S o 

>>X 
a a l 
OPS 


,S2§ 


r2  y1 

C3  • 

PS 


o 

ft 
- a 

f| 

l^.S&s 

4j  o.g  qJ  r 
-2.- 2 ©"PP  a a q 
a s* 

OcoPh^S  ^ g 
hSW<i^or-E'§ 
bdO^lS* 


I 

si 

^8  ^ g!  ^ 

^8 

s 

i 

sissi  n 

el 

B®  fe  § CD 

8 s£  ® S Jo 

s . 

_ >> 
a^a 
© g 
^©  ©*  Ph 
• 

£ CJ 


Wjfl 

•gH  o 
o 5? 
H * 


ills  I 

• t-  £-  CO  00 


I!  s 

8 jb 


aaa 
© © © 
© © © 
Ph  Ph  Ph 


SSS£ 
s s 


a . ' 
««  ® 

a © 
o w 
qPh 

C«  -M 
4->  0> 

03  P 

°cg 

ss 

H ^ 03 

« o 

o +* 

& 

ft  egegeg  P 

£ ©® 
cj  yi  ui  in 

Upgooo 
a «WWW ® 


°8  =3  a 


©a 

O)  o 

Ph^ 


x 


aaa  o 

■p+j+ja 

a a aiP 
S?>  o o o 
a mMOJco'S 

^ a >>  >>  >>Q 


xj  «3  cccocq 
O 


a 

© 

© 

^a 

a 

«fe 


II 

C^J  (M 


II 


PhPh 
© © 


a o 
^a 


©' 


© 


aaWW 


Wd^ 

a bo-2 


5| 

CO  I=i 


a 
r o 
SP'g 


PP  a oV 

3 

a a~<i  <3 

Fh.S*-  1 

<1MM  ! 

a a 

•a  cs  i 

03 

o 

Q 

<5  a ‘43  ft 
a © Jh 

2 S«£o 

o 

a 

b! 

Q->  Fh 

i-5-  - 

^ vi  m 

tn  S © © 

S S .£ 

V 0)  QJ  .O) 

a a. 

aS 
a 0. 

tuo 

aO^ft 

•2 

Fh  QJ 

"oj 

•SO 

3 

S Ph  <1 

OPh 

© Ph  Ph 

Ph3Ph 

a 1 

; Ph  -r 


VI  W VI 

a?  a>  <u 

VI  VI  VI 
VI  VI  VI 


O O O k 

s ^ s f 
aaa, 
'£'£■£' 
a a a r 


Sh  Sh  f- i 

aaa 

PhPhPh 


Ph  Ph 


t Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished  242  Feed  refused  by  agent 

* Not  tagged 


120 


11  'd  tn 
ra  0)  +J 

S ^ S 

. 5 tn 

o £ £ 
H d ft 
0)3  5 


5J  © 

s-, 

a a 


ft.ft  ft 
d 0)  © 

So" 

A g fn 
O P,  © 


© ~ 

•p-sl 

o'”  s 

a 


puno^ 


paa^ire 

-jenf) 


punoj 


paaq.ire 

-a^ao 


•^uao  aad 
aan^siopj 


a 

uoi^oadsui 


l^PBJO 


<H  O 

d S 


M-i  © 

«*£©  S 
.5  ^ ft  ft 


^d-d  s 

0 <D 

•.  G)  3)h 

M «M  W c$ 

S ►,§  2 

? fitie 

IPs 

-ft  d 


© © .s 
d w d . 
ft  !2  ^ d 

,2  bfi  © 

^ 2 £ 

4)  g.  ^ 

W - ft  3 

3 d © © 

O g £ 

13  ft  p r„  5? 


■d  d 

0)  <U 

C 3 


33  13  O 


o s 
r -.  ft 


4)  13 


I o 

is 

I ft  . 


d w -ft 

« I®  ti 


--S 


S ft 


ft  ^ ft  c S 

“ 1 O *- 


«*g  ss 


OP 


© © 

as 


O PQ 


^ ctf  t-  ^3  W CD 

rP,Mo0oftaio 

’•^QpQ^Q 

d © 

i “ ft  ® © . M 

-ffi  ft  cj  ftlH  in  d 
. d © © 

■ftmOOtP^ajO) 

SCdftftfts-dC 
'dddO.— -d 

) tnxaxn  O co 


'Odd 
1 ft  3 © 

; bc-ft  © 

! -+JS 

■ ft  g g 

4)  ° S 
: ft  .§ 

to  be 

; d t 

' 0)  o — 

! © ft  08 

“ n ® 

o ^ S 


ft  Tf  © O « 

3 SEES 

„-  o«s'6 

+J  © ft  S- 

d w © w © 


S - 


'I]  w -m  3 

TO  LO  -M  TO 

W O O O 
c-  o < 


A §wP 


O -ft  d 33 


g E © E t s g 

d o ft  o d o © 
ffiU  o u 


© •*<  33  © 

SdSS 


u mu  xfi 


w brS  ^5 

I-5*5! 

O c 59 


C ft  co  © 
u o © « 

O CO  w « 

o 


00  00  CM  Ol 


■ CM  <N  -— 


o o 

a a 


o o 

§ S 


o o q q 
(N*  c<i  c^i 


; o q q 
I ^ ^ ^ 


oscocqq 
00  u£ 


c3 

H ! p 

?-H 

~s  <u 
^ O PL, 


4)d  i®3  d 


03 


X2  . . 

-ft  fttP 


O W&H 


■i  ® 

© 

E-i 


^ ft  © 

Jwl 

M <t>  M 


S -£  53 
+f  Jj  xT>  i 
SS|. . 

08  ” Sx! 

'S 

ft  © ft  a 

M 33  o 02  j 
■§  ft  ft  . 


33  © 
biOS 
« a > 

ft  >>  m 
^2  © 'd 

o 

»i^2  C3 
ft  c3  *h 
^HO 


ft  ' © 
ft  ! o 

“ w-O 

Sis 

- 03 

•s  g«8  g 

ft. 2 g ft 

c3  ^ ^ 

So"  S "E  § 

os  a ft^A) 

.a-sg  To 

h 3-3  O^j 

ft  Pm  d O o 
Pm  d *-s 


a a 


« 


g 8 


11 
© -ft 
is  o 

©O 

Jz; 


K>  3 
ft” 

t5  ^ 

o.S 
5Z5.2 
-Pm 
6 - 
M 1=1 
21 


0X2 

.2  a 

d ft 

«o 


©O 

Ul 

g*« 

pH  >> 

. o 

SQ 


£8 

gg 


e g g % 
gg|gg  i g g & 


o © io^i 

LO  O 


SI 


a.S'g 

Pm  ft  ft 

^ o Pm 

33 1-1  f 
© ft 
ft  +i  o 

ft  02  M3 

« r° 

»8  O 

l«o 

g ft  ft 


I ! | 

i i i 


^03 

0.  ft 


A OPh 


Pm  Pm  Pm  £ £ 

o o 

c3  o3  d m3  X3 

ft  ft  gOQ 

d d ts.SP.SP 
Pm  PmPh  Pm  A 


Pm  A 


-as  s 


A Pm  A PO 


33  ft  ft  s ft  ft 

A A A A A A 


a s s ft 
A A A A 


ft.  ^ 

§ .w„ 

£>3 
^ * © 

SoSh 

oS^-g 

cj  a? 

Sj  d ft  « 

g§ 
ft  o 

a 


ptj 


o © S 


o 

° A © 
O P< 
^d  ft 
ft  ft 
ft  x ft 

©•"ft 

(H  ^ © 

O co 


"ft  ^ 
ft^ 

or' 

cod 

© .ft 

■Sa 

II 

■ft  O 

co§ 


<0  g 

a 


3 a 2 
£ to 

S3 

gg  fl 

-w 
■S  5 

. 43  A 
rd  ® 

0)  *H  ^ 
® V 

^ CO 


a 

to 

c3  2 


121 

ins, 

oat 

0 “ 

>> 

c 

rrt  42  fa 
•«®o« 

oS 

fn  *• 

O S 
to 

a 

9 fa  fa  s 

c d ft  to 

bjo  “ 

“-0 

2 c3  £ a 

0 

fa  03 

O ® 

w ® 

S a^Sg 

listillers 
oat  si 

alt 

W >> 

© g 

L meal, 
s,  0.6% 
determi 

determi 
leal,  wi 
groun 
uffed  r 
salt.  C 

® ® 4)  ® rj3 


B ° 
C - 
o w 
-2  bo 


S w 


-fa  O - c 

»S  2 £ o 


bo  ^ 
c wi 

gS,* 


o — ' 

iB£, 


2 go  2 -«« 
i c c ® a ^os 


s"s 


o 15«S  S 

W w o 

* O 

a s 

u • g o 

o O u 

_ o w “fl'd 

® o+j  a « <d 
£ ^ fa  S 4)  ^ 
W O o Jj  -g  y 
oj  -C  fa  C 

'ph  ^ M-*a  8 ^ 

o o 


i ® W%J  S . 

! ^ ^ *“1  crt  m 


£ ^ O 2 S 

S 2*  S 

+->  X 5 

2"SS* 

.-S^I 

fa  _ o a 

11b2S 

C ® fa  d +-> 
w -fa  o fa  o 

o o 


^8$ 
■38“ 
£2Q 
bo  o P 

_<  a m 

£3  § 
boo  5 

m 


o§ 


! o 0031 
o 

cd  t-’  1 


C 

, o o ■ 


02  C _ m ._ 

fa  (B  j.  ® 

O Xfl  . r^-i  > "I 

H fl  c-gSS  § 0 * g 

ri  £ 0 -wp  P ® ® 

(B  ■“  ^ 

a-oo  ° 3 

*■>  <d  w 

o <6  ® 

O <B  JH 

c3  © C 
fa  <fa  c3 
O TO 


1 1—  . — 1 .— 1 . — 1 r*> 

■ c3  c3  c3  c3  <u 
' 02  02  TO  02  fa 


a| 

s? 

rd  « 

2 8 
a^s 
^ 82 

® p a 

^ -d  ““ 

..  CD  ^ 

d d o 
° ft^. 


1 a 


£ a 


a a a 


© © 


fa£,C 

O d 

« ft2 
C bo  ® 

C.S---2 

H-^S 

Oflotifi 

w 


a cs  a> 
CO  CO  co 

LO  LO  LO 


flop 

w w w 


05  05  Cl  C5 


<d  <d  a) 

a a a 


a 

cd 

WWW  WWW 


r£  co  co  co  co  c ^ 

10  LP  ip  10  lo  £ 

P p p p p 8 "3 

to  to  CO  to  50  C 
d rt  d d j>  H 
OjU'fl 
a 0 ® 
C ci  a) 
cb  fa  'fa 
02  U 


(B  w 

. - to  bo  - 
. aJ  g C ’ 

H)«m 

a 

<B  e < 

■g  «£  B « 

03  _ 


°°.  ci 
o ®2  1 


! App  P 


03  0) 

a a 


2 ^ 
to  £ 


o ® ® 

^ a a 

to  d cO 

TO  TO 


^ cO  a 
2 ” 
r-H  fl) 

d^a 

U^TO 


11.1 

iH 

05 

10.4 

11.3 

16.6 

LO 

CD 

9.0 

9.2 

12.9 

9.0 

11.2 

CO  O LO 

X>  LO  CD  CD  O LO 

t-S  eg  eg  eg  eg  0 

23.5 

co  05  eg 
cd  eg  ei 
eg  eg  eg 

21.2 

9.7 

eg 

O 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

O 

0 

OOO 

OOO 

000000 

O 

OOQ 

0 

0 

0 

O 

06 

05 

05 

d 

CD 

00 

06 

00  06  d 

odd 

0 0 d d d C5 

a 

S S ©q 

s 

05 

05 

00 

00 

<N 

0 

00 

CO 

co 

t- 

CD  O »0 

00  'HH 

CO  tJH  CD  rH  X>-  O 

00 

r~-  co  lo 

CO 

CD 

CO 

oi 

10 

LO 

CO 

co 

CO  CO 

^ Td? 

^ ^ ^ cd 

LO 

LO  LO  ID 

eg 

eg* 

0 

0 

0 

10 

LO 

0 

eg 

eg  eg  eg 

eg  eg  eg 

eg  eg  eg  eg  eg  0 

O 

OOO 

0 

LO 

LO 

co 

co 

cj 

10 

LO 

CO 

co 

cd  co  co 

cd  cd  cd 

cd  cd  cd  cd  cd  cd 

CO 

CD  CO  CO 

cd 

00 

0 

l>- 

0 

LO 

eg 

0 

05  0 eg 

eg  05  co 

Th  O H 05  CO 

CD  05  1>- 

TH 

O 

(N 

d 

co* 

w 

LO 

rH 

d 

0 

00  05  05 

d GO  05 

rH  05  00  O 

od  00 

00 

LO 

\d 

rH 

s ’g 

Lh  o> 

H pH 

§ I 

03  CO 

a ^ 
S ° 
o .a 

HH  Tj 

2 n~% 

c3  O 

°g2 

!a  ^ 
i*o  O o 

§ 3 
o? 


1 

l 

1 

1 

a 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

P3 

fa 

i fl~ 

> 

• 0 

n JO 

ss 

§1 

0 g 

□Q  •— 

a 

® 

- M 

gSa 

fa  s 


>.  o 


I s 


-22 
: O 


m • 

rd  O =.  v 

po«o 

>-a  JZ5 


PQ«  o 
=3=3  & 


?-•  d S 
% gc 
PIP,1^ 


! a-g 

P 5S  p 
OPsJ 
-fa  as  fa 

.Ssw 
„ _ o 

6 s 3 
Or9fe: 


OoM 

i s I 


■gw 


o 

w2 


S3  6 

03  O 

Pi  .9  - 
„03.9 

• *h  03 

CO  rK  - . 

g°o 

Wg  fa^ 

d o 

go 

faiS  0 

O 'So  O rn 

wor 


ua  .flu 
60  ® flg. 
jg^M  ft  S 

0§oT«8SS 

^2  03  fa~0 
! d 00  03 

. 1 i 03  9 « «8 

,°A  gPp 

1 6 ^ ce  W 


Npb  §®bOC5 
O O ^ Ifi  LO  ^ rH 

W ^ b H H 
CD  CD  CO  l>r-J^O0t- 


9 

d 

C3 

jO 

'S 

«+H 

CO  -fa 

1:3  s 

d o 
.fa!  P 


d c 

^5 


9 ® 
d-ft  9 
9®  g „ w 

S ocQ”  « 

20  .S  9 
rr  03  ft 

<1^3  gfa® 

1§i»J 

is^I 

M o £ 0 


to  a 


g§8rS 

gf2£§8 


CO  CO  CO  CO 

83 


CO  CO  co  CO  fo 

88  s§gg  88 


) CO  So  < 


S o5  ^ ® 


o a 


£P 

CO 

» to 
d o 

on 


rC  d! 

<U  03 
03  03 

P P 

'CD'S 
a d 03 

IK 

33^ 

® ® g 

22d3 


>>  2 

5 § 

6 & 


^ ^ 

<D  CD  CD 
CD  CD  <D 

Ph  Ph 


9 9 9 

d d d 
^3  X3  .a 

u o o 
C0O2TO 


d3 

'd'd'd'd  ® 
® ® ® ® _® 
® ® ® w &j 

PPPP 

fa;  fa  fa  fa  o 

03  c3  c3  03 

9 9 9 9 s 

ddddj 
-d  x:  jp  si  d 

o o a a i_j 
UlWWWf^ 


03 

K 

c3  c3  c3  c3 

KKP3K 

<-2  O 
03^1 

>> 

t>j  >>  >>  >> 
.fa  _fa  _fa  _fa 

B «“  p 

S 

3 03  03  03 

p 9 'O 

R 

RRfifl 

p 0 0 

O 

0000 

9 .0 

to 

to  to  to  to 

0 

w02M 

S 

3 H 5 5 

■3  M 

122 


«_ 

o 

a 

<u 

CC 


o3  ^ 

a J 


_ o to 

£ c 
5 3 a> 

o -G  w 


£ $ 
fa 

c ft 


a +> 

•8-§S 

2g“ 

O 

a a 


oSl 

S'"  z 

^ aj 

a 


punoj 


paa^uB 

"JBnD 


puno^ 


paa^uB 

-aBno 


*^uaa  aad 
aan^stoj^ 


S w 

IsS 

LO 


a a 

J— < ^ 

<D  © 


5 a 

bo 

^ C3 


oj  «2  CO  CO 

d)  rH  LQ  lO 

g d «D  CO 

C3  Q Q 

0) 

© ~ W M 

w 2 ^ 
a g 

2'cS  « ® 

*>^aa 

o bo  ^ jg 
O MM 


PP 


0)  <0 

a a 


oo  oo 

S3 


© © © 

oj  ss  oi 


© © 

S3  S3 


irs  in  mm 


o a 

<sgft 


03  03 

lJ  fa 

Ho 

6=3 

o „„ 


S3  £3 
fa  bo 
S'-ft'a 
*->  a o 
®3o 
M £ 
c n & 


°5 

g^Oh 
03  OQ  'o5  ^ 

oo°a 

o Mp3 

■ am 

. 'r 


o aj 

. oo 
Oft 


■ o 
a >><3 

03  "S,  - 

a bo  . 

w 3 o 
'S  OO 
ftft 


53  « So  g 

g-S  « w 

^“Sg 

c -fa  1-1 

'O  ft-  c . 

G c flj  -H 

aj  ^3  2 fa  G 

« 83  es  <v 

_ v S £ 

fl  as  b(  « 

fS  g ce 

hP  P o S3 


G a;  y S ” 

3 « £ - 

o to  02 

fa  ,2  «’G  rS 

^.S-SS  . 

a>  to"  bo  S £ 

G bo 

•S  'H  eS 

g 5 £ « ® * 

2 IljS’Sg 

<2  O .75  > aj  ^ 

— ; 02  -fa  P Sh  O 

< u 


5 a 


GO)  2 1 

— fa  ~ 


02  0> 

i*s 


0’S 
fis 
02  § 
cl 
S g 

a>  a 

fa  fa 

u £ 


c3  jg  eg  <u 
® m o o 

^ a s 
« ^ 13 


o o « 

• 2* 
-flQ  # 

*$  J 


io  ,-T 

P 2 


ro  oj 
to  S3  ■ 

a<a 

M <3 


fsB 

Sfi 

:°s 

§ 

£ | aj 
\ta£X 


s a 


■g  ’S 

G +j  v 

G 33  -fa 
o ai  G 
fa  to  fa 

bo  fa 

-3°3  be 

2 1-1  -fa 

a - o 

02  e 
^ 02  M 
^ 10  ja 
0>  02 
.<12  0j 


•O 

§ ” 50  « 
6^*8 w 


33^ 


GJ 

- ,«  eS  ~ oj 
^6 5 5°w 
o 2 2 
s 

as  ~r  ° 

fa  2 oe  -g  ^ 

Q ■“  “ -|  a “ “ 

to  42  fa 

cj  ffl  “ , -G  « W 
•fa  aj  as  to  oi 
ti  fa  ^ 

(0  G <0  42  ® 0>  <12 

a-§  aas  a a 


02  02  ' 

1 


P PPP  P 

02  02  02  02  02 

cj  cd  cj  cd  cj 

O 0)  O d)  © 

a a a a a 


M M MM  M MMM  M 


O © 
02  02 


© © © 
02  02  02 


CQ  <=3 


P=5  ®tO 

t»3* 

JH 


© 03 
^ 02 

>^W 

QQ 

fl  r • 

03  oO 

OO  . 

W 1-3 


9 ] O 

■S  ! O 


C5  > 
fajgW 

ls^ 

-^^33 
o .2  S3 
03  33  S 

3sl 

ah| 

PH^O 


I & 

a 

&* 

a & 

O o , 


sea! 

a^§is«2 

°^Qlaa° 


e<j 

co 

8 

1 

8 | 

s 

S 

in 

s s 

e 

fi 

C^l 

?2  fi 

5 

§ 

§ 

g i 

a 

uopaadsuj 


IBiotpo 


SfH 


II  ^ 
88  8i  8 


i gii 


'O'O 

$ S 

^ * 

. o o 


e3  ^2 

fl  - te  te 
•E  .22  o o 
P 200 
Ph  9 

_ H 03  03 

a ..2.2 


*33 

AhPU 


'O  T3 

OJ  CD  <V 

QJ  CD  OJ 

fan 

^ ^ & 

o o o 

£3  £3  £3 

OO  o 

& £ * 

o o o 

OO  O 


S3  P 

PhPM 


ft  «S 

o 3 

02  M w 

Em  W 

SS5 

P w w 
02  flv 


i 


ol 


aft  Gft 
« « 


a a 


© © © 


03  03  c3 
© © © 


be  be  bo  bo  bo  bo  bo 
ft  ft  Ph  ft  ft  ft  ft 


.02  .02  .CU 

'S  a a 


Wftft 


02  O)  02 

a a a 


123 


243  1400  lbs.  removed  from  sale.  Returned  246  700  lbs.  removed  from  sale 

244  6 tons  removed  from  sale  247  500  lbs.  removed  from  sale.  Fsed  by  agent 

245  600  lbs.  removed  from  sale  248  10  tons  removed  from  sale 


124 


6 ® a 
H d 


3 3 
o ^ 


r;  to 

£ 0) 

d ft 


03  .P  C 
73  O ® 

go" 
O g,® 


'S-u  3 
os  d o 

r 5 ti 

03 

a 


puno^ 


paa:piB 

-juno 


puno^ 


paaiuB 

-aBao 


*^uao  jad 
aj;n^sioj/\[ 


-a  x 

S § 


A <u 

^ S 


'd 

••*  w 
K w 


Is 


03  “ 

C o 


d^ 


2-0 

o 0) 

SS 

e 


3 p 

1 » 
ft  3 

>.2 
P!  P2 


>d  fc*  d 

r <l  h as 

; g ® S 


>>.  a>  -“ 

7;  to  to 

d £ d'g 

o5o| 

ft2 s g 
-d  u 


S w P M 
tjSifl 
d 2 " 

&ftg 


£ fcj) 

£•§ 


.5  £ w 

d P 


-d  -d 
<0  a> 
3 3 

is 

^ Jh 


s: 


- 3 a _r 


d 2 


{"  d 


0 g d 

0 d 

P - 03 

c J 03  d 

1 CO  ^ fl 

0 

^ w 
w ' 

?nd-  C 

M ^ u 

O 

03 

<D  ■ 

So 

^ 5 

O 

o ^ 

•e  ^ ^ 


k*  TO  - 

<p  o ~ n 

' *►  hH  02 

<u  -d  cc  5 3 

W (1)  .pH  CO  O 

3 73  ft  . +» 

O P O,  -*-'  ™ 03  - 

-m  CO  .S  -3  ® d 3 

w tjtj  n s< 

o 3 o to  .5  d O 

U MO 


3 

d g 

w ^ 

03  03  tH 

3gS 
* "Q 
-d 

S3« 

B3  ^ CL)  & — 

c o 3 % O . 
oic<»io 

^ a a o 

w CQ 


SgS 

0 o 3 

-d  y 

S * 

d ^ <u 

; « 3 2 

' P.  H c 

^ ^ 2 


tfiOQ 


-^0  0 

§ss 


4->  W 

P o ^ 
(1)  o w 
^ M 

. ,Q  ri 

rd  ■ r 

3 c 3 s 
ifo  . 

^ 3 fc,  to 

® o ft  bo 


2 dta 
3^  g 


K W ® d 
d£« 

«,*  °a  . 

S 3 to 


"J  p 
3 33 


P 8 
"«  “1  ” 
§M* 

ce  ^ ® -m  o 

wo 


3 — 

S -3 

-d 

- '3  w 
d Sc 

g 2 

*3  60 

-d  ® 

(Ll  -3 

8*"S 

3 03 

2 

+J  3 0> 
° c3  2 

t)  t-  ^2 
^0 


: -t->  -d 
i d 33 
; 03  33 
0 33  ^ 


00  to  00  © 


eo  co  co  <n 


co  o 

03  CO 


T»ifl  (M  in 
03  CO  O 


2£ 

W 

2o'  2° 


d 33 

W <5 
'B  § 


>>33 

H 

^ o 


> S 

tn  O 
2 * 
§<« 


Si® 

&a  5^ 

gs  a 

r§  P?  ^ 


pP 

K <£ 

O P 

ft^lgft' 

Oa 

(hM 

d . 
boW 
-O 

• CD  J -q  ^ 

>C5  .ofcj 

S3  .2 
^ O 
-o  ft 


22 

P4 


Number  | 

a 

uoi^oadsui 

81S7 

8186 

: 51  a g S 

! § S sl 

1 3 

38  S8 

1 Ift  1— 1 IfS 

8 ll 

1 O S 

; f:  g 

I^PHJO 

® ® ! §1  ^ W ^ S 0?  08  GO  S 

1 

1 

1 

^ ^ ; : 

§3-^1  1 

P „ ',  ! 

1 l 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

l 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 i 

■ 1 

1 

a 

bo 

o 

r W 

S 

4-3 
* • W 

*¥* 
d o £ 
ft^!,  ® 

ri  OJ0HH 
d C 03q 

ol®« 

o 05  -d 

S 

.2  53 
53 


.2P>h 

s 


■3^ 

33 


d'g 
a 9 

a53 

° 2 

O g 

03  W 

cl) 

CQ  >> 

« a 

£ o 
® fl 
£ ft 

is 

w 


5 w 


p 

§ 

_,  -d 

-P  03 

P 33 

d 


O d 

WP 
o o 
c rt 
o o 

03  03 

ww 


-d  -a 

Q3  03 
03  03 


d d 

PP 


a 

a o- 

s5i 

0O1 

O 

bo '-2. 

C)  d 

p:  a 

S3  P 

S'3 


00  ®® 

03  o d 

W«  W 


o 


|k 
® >. 
a •- 
O d 
fl  0 
P 


125 


S+S 
a 
. a 

m h 


d"°  g 

2 8 g 

S eS 

«r  S 
<2  bD 

ft  ‘S  ® 

*W  S 03 

03  £ a 

pJafl 


a 

• * ,2 
o 

2 © a 

C ^ M 
H W . 

CCm 
sh  bx) 

<U  £ 

a)  -f  *2 

^ s 

O ^ y 

a ^ to 


a .5  -s 

■g*  s33 

H W 


a ii 


.S 

l P »0  ' 
: » 
c 1 


•2  a v 

(D  TO  2 

e-r 


5 ft  to 


© to 
a 

^ CO 
© 
c'S 

Sh  -U 

O CO 

u3 
■a  - 


* § § 

flfla  « 


CO  03  © 

a ft  to 

a 

© © O 

S S £ 

a a o 
w w o 


2~: 

“SJ 

a^’* 

Sos 


a 

1 M © 

2 ft  s 


0)  <D 

” S i 

A n ■a 

0>  <D 

M <D  <1) 

aw"-1 
a)  § a 
gt5  o 
a o a 
w u 


w 

a <“ 
a m 
5 M 
p a 


££mS 

°afQ 

a,  <U  “5  (-) 

O ® r-5 
° CO  CO 

a . a 

CO  o — 

y -*->  ft  © 
a -*-*  a c* 
a o a 
u y a rf 
h w 


-a  -a  ta  _ 

© © © >a 

« .5  .5  £ 

e a e s 

t<  (h  a a 

© © © y 


a ,a  ^ .s 

a a a +j  ^ 

w w Mat! 

© to 

• <d  ; 


c3  j, 

a? 

g rt 


© © 

a ^ 
p 


a y a 

S3" 
£§ 
CO  ft 

a ' * 


*L  -a 
a S 
Sg 

h 

. M’ 


r ft 
to-o ; 
o 

t-  , 


g % » ft 

rH  xi  \ S. 


Eh 

a;  rr<  „ w 

S © to  w 

3 ft  to  c: 

03  ft  g &'- 

•rj  — - os  ■ 
•a 


'S«5  § 

© o ° 


a ? 


io  m 

ft  A 

CO  03 

a a 
© © 
a a 


133  c ^ 

Q O P Q 
M y w M 
to  ,rs  S 2 
a © ft 

© a © 

zj  y h z, 

a a p a 

a *-  y a 
wo  w 


. — ■a 
os  a © 

■ © a. 

s.e 


I ‘2 


O rft 

O 


© 

>2  *a  © 
a c to 

© 3 

a © a »« 

2 -a  w _ 

«»gn  « 

■a  to(->  ■a 
© - © « 

© to  r^S  CO  © to 

c ft  a ^ s ft 

o ° g © q o- 


: s~ 

o a o 
WO 


: Q 0 


: ^ © © 
: « a a 


11.6 

C<|  10  10 

0 0 1> 

n.o 

13.0 

12.1 

14.3 

10.5 

26.7 

26.4 

25.4 

26.5 

24.6 

26.0 

27.3 

25.3 

0 

17, 

15.6 

h;  q 
*cr  cd 

10 

LO  LO  LO 

LO 

Lrt  LO 

LO 

0 

00 

oq 

oq  oq 

oq  oq 

oq 

oq 

1a 

q q 

q q 

06 

06  06 

co  cd 

cd 

05 

eg 

eg 

rH  rH 

sa 

sj  « 

rH 

eg 

rH 

cd 

cd  cd 

cd  cd 

05 

ONO 

r— 

co 

0 

0 

0 

rH  eg 

eg  co 

q 

q 

rH  q 

q q 

c4 

00  CO  co 

eg 

cd 

cd 

00 

05* 

00  06 

06  06 

05 

LO 

cd  LO 

10 

teiON 

0 

0 

0 

0 0 

0 0 

q 

q 

q 

lo  q 

LO  LO 

eg 

eg  eg  eg 

eg 

eg  eg 

eg 

eg 

cd 

cd 

cd  cd 

cd  co 

cd 

cd 

cd 

cd  cd 

cd  cd 

CO 

eg  co  00 

co 

0 t- 

oq 

eg 

TjH 

05 

TjJ 

t-00 

q 

q 

rH 

rH  q 

q co 

3 

iq  eg  eg 

C^l 

cd  eg 

eg 

3 

cd 

00* 

05  00 

cd  06 

cd 

O 

rH  cd 

cd  cH 

"©  t® 
£ § 

© -M 
M © 

W tf 


?£i 

•a  2 2 


y ^a  'p 
> © © 
o > > 

ill 

■ © © 


U *H 


» M _, 
^ S S3 
a:  o o 


i a 

i to 
'O  a 

SQ 


| « o 


.-a  ao 


as  ' © w jxj 


°>,§ 


ax 
-t>  a 
«^pq 


^ a 
«8  .s 
Eh  O 


S o 

iS^ 


>1  I 

o £ 

■g « 
oS 


o5 

g:32 

a ^ 

5 « 

.^i 

CO 

co 

O 


as  © 

© CC 

cc  a 

a o 

o o 
oa? 


a 

o 

to  a 

sf 


> 

® a 


oS 


a.SS  to 
«og 

ft-+-i 


a © °o  a „ 
aa 

ft  . to  ftM 


d 

O 

to 

a 

Si 

© *rl 

Ph^ 

- a 
© o 

to  co 
a a , 
ffl  & i 


sii  s 


h4^ 
'5  Wdf 


n°  ft 

gf> 

g«r 
o g 

-CQ 
,0  W 
© rj 

ft  a 
CG  -ft 
a 

a's 

►C  « 


o 

to+f 

ft  .a 

.2  o 

ti 

c3  O 

o-s" 

wj 


gg  JS! 


p <o 


ID  O 

m 


f-  i-  g 


S s 

l>-  oO 


fa  S ©« 

sc  eg 


isi  ^ S ^ ^ < 

So  8 8 8 S gB  c 


ia  5§ 


1 i ! 

1 

1 l 

1 1 

oS  <x) 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 l 

1 1 

1 1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

03  ^ 

a ° 

§a 

Ul 

James 

id. 

'O'O 

Q3  M 

tj 

T3 

•?.s 

t^1-1 

a^M 

& <D 

MM 

© 

M 

© © 
MM 

© 

M 

© 

- © 

S a 

ft 

1-4  ® © 

« to  to 
a «h  fn 

^WW 

ft  ►>. 
co  <r 

0 a 

Wp 

>> 

P 

>5  t» 

’a  a 
PP 

>> 

‘a 

P 

gw 
M * 

« © 

© © 

2 a 
a a 

31 

© 

% a a 

a a 

a 

a a 

a 

tsa 

<« 

a 0 0 
<<aa 

•2.2 

_o 

0 0 
a a 

.0 

a 

^ a 
a ft 

a ft 

PP 

PP 

P 

PP 

P 

a!> 

ft  ! 

© © 

a a 

a a 
MM 


o a 
SM 


•a  a 

g a 

oW 
a a 

fH  © 


OP 

to  T3 

a a 
o o 

a a 
a a 

a a 

MW 


'O  T3 
© © 
© © 
pH  (3H 


OP 

-a  ra 

a a 
o o 

a a 
a a 

a a 

ww 


'd 

© 

a 

a 

© 

© 
w © 

© "S 

a S 
ft  2 
P ej 
a 
. to 
>a  *ft  v„ 
© © to 
to  P®.S 

bjO  to+a 
ft  ft  « 

£ +J  Is 
o y S 
'ZtZ'XJ 


126 


to 

■tj  'ft  to 
TO  Q)  -M 
g ® C 

o g « 

<3  3 ft 

C 60  TO 

_ O M 
C c TO 

5 +j  -o 

3 3 m 

o -S  TO 


TO.S  TO 
'O  to  to 

EI2 


CD  rj 

^■g  § 

s«a « 
u & 

A 


punoj 


paa^ue 

-•ran*) 


punojj 


paa^uB 

-jeno 


•*uaa  .tad 

aan^sioj^ 


t) 

to 

43  TO 
1/2  0 

£H 

o 


X M 
’3  to 

g £ 


" a>c 

CO  'C  , 

^ n-( 

- TO  ^ 

° C ° 

CO  '4_l  O ■ 

]L-2 

^ TO  ^3 
a)  3 w 

v*  S TO  TO  ft 

1 - ft" 


43 

S-2 


C2  o K 
^ TO 
g-3  ® 2 o 

IsrS" 

S-g  . 

3 - o X 

m? 

+j  TO  '3  >d 

to  42  TO  to  to 


TO  - O 

O 3:  TO  _J 
TO  tS  S o TO 


TO  3.  TO 
" To  TO 
6 “2 


12  TO  "TO 
'o  01  TO 
;ft  g -ft 

S g-HS 

0 0 

G 0 
t5  o +a 
w o e 

^ S 

rH  OS 

r - fa 
£ 43  05 
co  TO 
¥3  it 


C S43  g 


fU 

>.*& 

.ills' 

■§  .S  TO  TO 
. p -.  TO  o 


^ “ ft^-. 
to  43  *55  o 


“ B TO 
P TO  TO 

d]  <H 

'3  n3  -TO  _ . 

s s Sid 
a g e § o ! 

t-  tH  Sh  — (C  2 
TO  TO  TO  43 

TO  TO  TO  u'?  . 

'O  'TO  'TO  TO 


*p 

TO  O • 
43  TO  O 


-JjJ'S  TO 

TO  TO  ^ ^ 
CO  TO 

W to‘ 

2 TO  TO 
£ CD  £ 
<D  GQ  E 

fe 


;(D  J >»«£ 

5 6 s§  a 
■ •§. 


0 ccj 
W <D 

TO  E 


TO  Q.^ 

TO  M,TO 
ft  TO 
TO  ’C 
^2 'TO 


TO  ^ 
TO  TO 


TO  £ C 
o ft  o 
cc 

^4  — TO 
TO  TO  TO 
0 0 5 

S E U 


tf  JS 

<D 

■g§l 

gag 

-m  TO  43 


g « TO 
TO  2 
3 TO  g 
TO  g 

" 13 

42  TO 

>>  g 

.-  q;  TO 
*2  — 1 O 
TO  u o 
O TO  o 
TO3  42  TO 


£42  _ g 

to  ^ ’ro  T3 

.33  TO  TO 
+j  4.  CO  TO 
C3  irj  U2 

V X 

flgp 

o g 

-d‘«  * g 

TO  ® - O 

l:ii 

.ills 

W 


o , 

c S ' 


TO  TO  TO 


— «.W  «-VJ  «.VJ  f— « ^ 

£ ca  cq  in  £ « g 


^ ^ ^ 
to  to  to 
bo  o bo 
TO  tC  3 


<U  to  X 
.22  43  323 

8** 

ift 

0J30 
i*  2 


'd 

05  'TO  TO 

t-  TO  to 

t-  TO  TO 
®go 
QQ  TOS 
HHc  O 
CO  CO  U 

* TO  TO  TO  nj 

g 33  TO  TO  TO  g cS 

v 43  g g g O S 
•°  to  TO  TO  TO  <2  R 

cocqmO 


ft—  ? : 


S^Ql 


2 B TO  g 22 

8 * S 2^3 

ft  . j-  ^ 
>>TO  g 

7;  0 £2  0 

^ 3 x-S  8 
£ g o * -g 

ft<H  OOP 


oq 

O 

CO 

LO 

q 

q 

in  00  <n  th 

l>- 

(M 

3! 

CO 

$ 

CO 

CO 

IP 

©q 

id 

1— 1 

q 

O 

q 

q 

0 

q 

0000 

°o 

c? 

(M 

CM 

s 

vrf 

CM 

05 

cc 

00 

q 

x>. 

q 

rH 

LQ  LO  CO  ©q 

^r 

00 

i>^ 

LO 

co  lc3  cd 

oi 

0 

q 

q 

q 

q 

q 

q q q q 

10 

CO 

id 

rj? 

10 

irf 

10  id  lo  10 

q 

©q 

q 

q 

q 

^ l>  CM  Tin 

co 

c 

» 

00 

05 

05 

06 

05 

05  00  05  GO 

00* 

1 

1 

f 

1 

r 

; 

J 

1 1 1 1 

1 CO  00  1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

6 

O 

j 

’> 

! 00  >> 

! n ft+i 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

>5 

| 

CO 

! g go 

1 

1 

1 

bfl 

TO 

O 

| 

TO 

1 G G 

1 TO  .03  ^ 

1 

1 

1 

5 

O 

; 

H 

I'S'ft'S 

3 3 j 

.9 

a 

l 

4-> 

O 

O 

O 

£ 

jQ 

CQ 

G 

0 

0 

O 

O 

TO 

TO 

TO 

6 ! 
© ! 

TO  ' 

ft  m 

6 

O 

MHHfl 

2 - -ft 

"O  Q 

3 

a 

c5 

£5 

S- 

1 

O TZ 

! 'C-S 

TO 

aro,o  6 

c 

! 

) 

q 

a 

3 

TD 

>5 

O 

u 

1 £ O 

! 

O 

C5 

£ $ SO 

6 

O 

O 

TO  3 

, 3 3 

! O TO 

Ph 

• ft  ft^ 

§ ft  £333 

£ 

E 

oS 

5 

1 

1 

J 

a 

43 

0 

t-S 

D 

0 \ 

°3 

wa 

! co  T3 

! 

Edw. 

TO  TO  « 

ft  11  O 

pX 

0 

G 

C/2 

1ft 

88 

s 

s 

g 

£ 

s 

1 

c© 

g 

s 

fc 

i 

1 

1 

8272 

(M 

g 

5496 

cp  cp  cp  co 

05  05  05  ^ 

-H  -H  ^ <50 
lO  iZ5  lO  a; 

5073 

a 

uoi^aadauj 


i«pmo 


aV.  >> 

§,5* 

O q H 

a 

^2-2 
_ “ TO 
g 43  Q 

SiPS 

ft  ft  a 

SMI 

£ 


o 


pj  CQ 


_ fci'g 
^20 
OpS 

T3  TO  o 


s 


s 


'O  . 

H C TO 
m bo  53 

jo  TO  ft 

TO  « 

W ^ 


II 


Q2  .43 
ft 

o 3 ^ 

s^l 

a c to 

33  So 

^®*TO 

to  | .a 

.ao  5 

3 * 
Ph 


o 

bo^_ 
TO  TO 
« TO 

sa 

o.. , 


a-  a 
a ®s 
0 2 

Oo 


C3  Cd  eg  C3 
0 0 0 0 


Cs5  oa  c3 

dodo 

a a a a 

c3  03  c3  C3 
0 0 0 0 
Sh  !h  ^ Sh 

OOOO 

M M M CO 
TO  TO  TO  TO 

ti'd'd'O 

>.>>>»>» 

KKKtf 


o 

£ ft 

o a 

TO  O 

ft  o 

Sdrr, 

"So 

°S£ 

>> 

,g-2S 


« TO  f» 

>>S-r 


127 


t Before  registration  253  Relabeled  with  No.  8856.  Conflicting  guarantees 

tf  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished 


128 


0 

^ M 

TO  (P 

g a c 

^ 5 ^ 
5 g ® 

£ 3 3 
C 60  d 
. o w 
5 ft  d 

Ifl 

s:s 

“So 

XJ  M 
5 Cl) 

(-. 

a « 


Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

puno^ 

paa-^uu 

-anno 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

puno^ 

paa^uu 

-anno 

•^uoo  aad 
ean^sioj^ 

a 

uorpadsuj 


I*P®0 


©ag  2 

<u  <d  x;  id 


».S  a 

bc~  a 
ft  & 


Ss 


^ CD 

£ s 


d d ^ 

<D  OJ  W 

EE.. 

'd  a;  • 

4>  i O 


§2 

iE 


0 - 
<D  W 

«w  ft 


£ 

ft  c 

® S 

o 

o 


x!  „ 

£ be 

d c ■« 

| § “ 


s1= 


be  ^ 
£ . 


5 a ® 


53  2 g 

fi  rj  C 

® C _- 

TT*.  Ti 


* ^ H 


a s 

§ .3 

©■d  os 

ri 

.5  ~ ® 
ix'ft 
ft^ 

^ 2 03 
■U  4> 
“hfl 

go  t» 

E pH  =3 

a M 


S •■£ 

2^3  2 
ft  c =3 

fiH^ 
o - 

°!- 

g*l 

w -£ 

tH  ft  CO 

®°  «S 
2^©! 
S 3 
tu 


bX)  cm 

C 

3£ 
2 8 
S . 

- o3 
ft  <B 


4) 


® x: 

o3  £ 

o 


+->  fe  c3  ij 
a 'w  £ 

<d 

e >?5  S 


13  rO  - d 
2 ? C3  ® 

S&28 

rd  * »d 

<D  -4  m <D 

a)  b ; a) 

W « 4!  M 

2 £ ft  2 
~ "bjo ' ' 
a*S  a * 

d o>  ;■< 
ft  XI  O 


«„-2 

d « 

. cd  a 

a g M 

<D 

8^  a 

CD  rtj 

d)  e- 

c ^ S 

<D 

2 S* 

^8  8 


c d! 

o§ 


g d 


“g 

» 8 


S’SS'gigg 

O (D  .2  ^ 

us  §s 


(JJ  M .«  03  (JJ 
O V t (H 

+J  03  ® 

c3  ft 


ft  o 
2 « 

* 21  ft 

^2  d 

^3  o 

S-o  ® 

§ gs 

X!  <u 

o >a  xs 
_ c 

S3  d 1-5 


* o ■ft 

1 -U  t) 

S v 

; SO 

<®  a 

■ S 83 


W C flS  60 
o3  83 

f'fl,s|  ft 
£ 0 50- 


5 g g 

c3  i->  a 

s 

to  fC  68 

bo  a;  _ 

C N » 


ft  Z 

£2 


S 

ctf  ® 

ft 


a ® 

M 


Codo 

‘ '5 1 


a >a 

<D  0> 

■ft  S 


<p  <0  a t-, 
c x;  t ° 
c bo  02 


® 

cS 

4)  V 

f e 

® 4) 


o ft  ft 
° a o)  a 

ft  ft  ft  4^ 

ft  8 ft 

C3  ^ 43 

3'£  2 

d ,2 

O -M  « 

SL  8 « 

C X3  2?  ft  2 
<c  > X!  o2 
c3  p o3  ’-5  be 
X .ft  g 

-a  . ft  ft  ® 

» 2 n -ft 

8ft  -ft  73 

1£$  t d®S 

lllStfi 

Z *-«lg 

2 ft  >>  ® 

M-M  ' H L GJ  ^ -M  I 

d OT1  W 

■g'S  *»-  “■ 

■d  ^8ft 
c A 

ft2  < 


& 4) 

. £ ' 


, -r.  u J Oil  <B  S 

•dts^gg, 

® 8S? o & 
03  ft  ^-«3 


lx 

I I 


n 

ii 

S a 

a! 


o ! 
ft<  ! 


ft  >> 
43  ft 

^3 


>>  4) 

O ft 

23 

s 


C3 

.s 

g>. 


bo 

4>  > W 
H 03 
03  ft  ft 

r >^d 
o Wo 

S O 
o 


rr  *** 

if  <y 
OfH 

s 0 ! 

0 O ! 

S3  v 

ija 

© 1 

• IQ  1 

03  i"  1 

! 

O 

Ul 

ox 

“XJ 

0 >” 

S3  w 
PS  >2 

Mh 

08 1*  >> 

03  >> 

^pp  So 

go 

^ Ph 

O 

0 

o >ft 
Pn  S 
08  s 

& 

03  Q 

Ph 


Ph  03 

^ & 

P4 


129 


>> 


o>  (3 
s a 

•ft  u 
d)  ft 

s 

a a, 

3 


X 02 

8 I- 

c 

s3  O „ 

£ «S' 


s S' 


cC  & ' 
cd  ^ 
* £ 


'O 

bo  . ® • 

;^3§ 
IS"  § 
g^2 


.P  go 
, S3  -5 
02  — 1 . 
m,  c ; 

*5° 

- to  w 
- ft 

"3  ic'd 
ft5?S 


I x?  ® £ ® 

i to  fi  H ® !* 

! « o © t:  C 
w eg  ft  = 

«®S^S  . 

■ bo  S a 2 xi 

S^Sji 

8 * - -Ss 


M'S 

ft  ® 


* £ 
ft.* 


; T3  - « 

1 S 

§ s 

44  pp 
- w 
ft  02  ig 

?3  P © 

tn  " 4) 

ft  P 5 ; 


02  T} 

ft  c ’ 


T3  P 3 S3  eg 
c ft  >C  ^ O) 

£3  W r^H 

2 «fl-* 
" be  02  ® £ - 
C H o ft 
1 - o 2 ojj 

ts  .§ 

;=  tiB- ^ 


'ft  t. 

O 


^ ^ ft -ft  cd 

S”1S5 
s’ « ® 1 1 

£ 0>  42  ? £ 

Jo  £m  2p 

o 


*3 

V 

3 S 

a .2 'ft 

43  © 
w — CC  , 

oj  cs  a ( 

SC’S* 


bO-ft  M 
ft  $ 4a  m 
— Mo10 
a S eg 

8 ®‘  02 
o 1 s s 

W .Q  M ni 


—(  TO 

eg  .5  w 
22  c , 
«|S 
JJgs 

cd 

o _ 4-» 


d s 

£ S 

"I  bo 
ft 

► Sh 

>.  o 

02  O 


,Q  *3 
cd 'd 

, p a 


c 

>> 

35 

eg  eg 

•§§««» 


CJ  ft* 

tSeS  cd  w 00  00 
o^ft°QflO 


c ®P 

3 P fe 
eg  ^ 
EG  P- 


» a eg  eg  eg 
tf  o 02  02  02 

« 3 £ £ £ 

■“uggd 
EG  Til  EG 


flfi 


w a/  w 

JlElS 


eg  ft  4j 
j;®  q 


•Sp-ft 

■— I o 02 

•d  © 

'd  _•  ■g 

M 

|S“ 

^ S’S 
^ & 
C - g 

cd  cd  C 

*H  0) 

•°  S'? 


cd  ^-T 
iJ  cd 

ce  e 


o>  _r 

£ d 


ss 


eg  02 

e2  C 4- 


- 'd  tj ’d  W 

CD  ^ C^J  cd  <D 

- 02  ft^g 


,ft  o .5  S .ft  g 


15.8 

15.6 

CD 

18.3 

16  9 

co  q 
in  d 

oq 

16  8 
17.1 

20.9 

15.1 

14  5 

14.9 

q 

d 

18  5 

19.4 

o 

q 

q 

o 

q 

o q 

o o o 

O 

q q 

o 

o 

q 

o 

d 

GO 

CO 

00 

qo  od 

oocd  C30 

d 

d d 

d 

d 

d 

q 

°o 

CO 

00 

q 

q q 

C0Q02 

o 

q q 

q 

00 

CO* 

00 

CO 

co’  ^ 

CO  ^ ^ 

co  d 

■rJH 

IO 

q 

q 

q 

q 

q q 

q q lc 

q 

q q 

q 

O 

q 

rH  rH 

1C 

1C  1C 

-i 

tJH 

C5 

q 

q 

1C  X^- 

q 00  q 

q 

q i>; 

q 

q 

d 

o 

d 

00 

00  00 

oor^oo* 

d 

oo  oo 

00 

d 

od 

-c  S'd 

U ® 

o ft" 

(^  § go 


w 2 


®T3 

-a  o 
§£ 


44  ft 

ft  o 
oco 


-a'-' 

►S'0 


. <u 


c Ph 
o 

02=3 
o 'd 
°0  >H  w O 
0)2 

§ gft  • 


i ft]  »g 


gift 
(C  02  ( 

PM 


ft  o 

j 'ft 
1 S3 

00 


T3 

£| 
S3  g 


C3 

O 02  O 
O ftM  r 

os  ss  r ° 
2^  oM 

d 0+4-^ 

M NM 


ft! 
ft  O 

5 to 

bo  ft 

.3  "S 
3 o 
o o 


o bo 
3 ft 

0X2 

M 02 

<4 

o « 


«M 

do 


CO  ^ 

aOOD 


ft  o 
M » 
ft  a 

OKS 
co  'ft 

”3-5 

M 


Q 

Q 

OO 

P 

P 

+M  4M 

«2 

C/2  C/2 

C/2 

C/2 

M 

M 

MM 

M 

M 

£~X3 

C3  S3 

SS 

>»  >> 
Ch  (h 

Pfi 


o o 

>>  >» 
eg  03 

MM 


MM 

Si  s- 

o o 


S3 

ft 

ft 

M 

II 

w 

* an  03 
“§! 
Vi 


m i 

a? 


^ q to 
.§!■= 


S3  03 

ft  a 
02  02 


OO 


ft 

3 

6o 


cc  . 

|!i 

WM 


MM 


.3  03 
So 


o S 


ft  « 
•ft  M 

ftO 

M 


M ft 


c/2 'd 

"3  £ 
M 


ft 

<D 

_o 

o g 

S3  2 

ft  ft 
•ft  X3 
ftO 

M 


tt  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished  255  10  tons  removed  from  sale.  Returned 

254  300  lbs.  removed  from  sale.  Returned  2go  i (on  removed  from  sale.  Returned 


1 30 


d 5 ” 

g ® e 
u g £ 

”E  cs  72 

CD  P 


|!, 

o 43 


r3  CO 

5 © 

a ft 


T3  O H) 

P d « 

o g,S 


© cl 

£2  ? 

w S 

A 


puno^ 


paa^us 

-a^ao 


punoj 


paa^ire 

-jeno 


rpiao  aad 
aan^siojfl; 


a 

uoiioadsuj 


IBioigO 


>» 

3 

d ID 
-Q  bD 
O 

P,  C 
o 
wr  o 


S -5 


S?  OJD 


CD 

8 *3 

CD 

. S 

0 

£ ^ 
^ <d 
0 

Ss 

o 43 

© 


GQ 


d 3 

5 ^ 
§2 


o -A 

o £ 


d 

2 © 

JH  <D 

C 42U5 
© 

g jtfS 

g d ® 

A t- 
X! 

d - 

■gti|  " 

g®  A § 

t>  02 


© 0 

os 


CD  • O 

S3  3 


a 

3 be 


§ a 


a £ 

o w 

Oofl 

S3  S ^ 

a „ « 
■C.2^ 

2 30 

Ph 

-P  C3 

o 4J  -r 

i^g 

P3  £: 


Efiti 
or!® 
o 43 

. d ^ 

TO  <M 

pH  i 

“73  s 

o 

. OS 


ID  a) 

g ® 
p 42 


S S 

S 


d 

2 

g 3 

A <n 


d 

£2 


os  fl 
bo  t-i 

*2.8 

§3  , 

h 'A  d 


43  53  A 
^®o 
d 

g £d 

® O O «-1  l» 
^UOrjg® 

■°  .2 « a 

+j d 
d © d 

id  © d 
43  ^ g 

^ 0 S 


C CD 

® sd 

d +J  m 

«u  o 2 
« 2 « 
•g  bx) 

g rj  d 

2 o g 
o M 

o ^ 

a os  ® 

4s  a ^ 

'U  o 

0 a ; 


IgSfi 


a I -s 

2^§^W 

C © »+,  © ci 

M 3 ® in  « 2 .H  ® 

' O 43  2 

rr.  . , 


ID  © m 4*  ^ rrt  © 

!h®3-1’Sh 

© 43  2 h 43  2 S 


s s 


5 8 

c$ 

^ »d 


■g! 

^2 


o S T3  ® 

a .5  ® 43 

c -<  « ^ 

S^22 

60  it  ^ 

p2-g  . 
® fi  3» 

g S ® 

. dj  -A  42 

sr™  . 

r £ ® p- 

d ^S2 

e=-2s 

;g  = So 


-a  3 * 


^22 
LO  r-H 

LO  O 


2 ^ 

G3  0 

* * 
. o 
c « 


® 43 
2 ^ 


a -g  8 
c bo  2 

+-T  . - ® +j'  <D 

d (r.  C d o> 
m 


id  d d 
a ® ® 
§ 43  g 
d|>  R 
02  > 


odd 

U ID  ID 

sge 


.2  ° 

So 


S'O  ac« 


m ja 
bfl  co 
m d 

o 
. >> 
o 

3 2 

CD  ° 

® Ph 

02 


rC 

. 02 

cd 

fl* 


+^>  d 

f£ 

2 C3 

d O 

o'5 

p 


d os 

O os 

® d 

^ O 

- a 

p'a 

§i 

co  -d3 
d3  4<3 

lg 


a a 

d d 

O O 

P3  C3 

<D  CD 

w w 


uH  O gw 

?g 

W r5 

zg 

CH 

t? 


as® 


2 PS  2 

Sa 

§& 

Ph 


S W 

<1 


’O’O 

as  <u 
os  os 

PP 

43  43 
O O 
+j 

d d 


rs  d 

tH  t-l 

d d 

dd 

33  a 

d d 

+-> 

CC  CO 

o o 

CD  CD 

a a 

o o 

MW 


o © 

a a 

d O 

A rn 


Ellis 

A 

+j 

02 

o§ 

w a 

® §w 
W.s2 

M 

M 

■ 43 
d 2 

2^ 
o d 

hj4:2 

w w Q 

o 

d 

po“ 

5913 

. 

i 

CO 

1 

2 

t- 

g§ 

fib 

S8fe 

£ 

g2 

I 

So  GO 

d 

© 

gd 

© 

■8^ 
£ | 
’Oaa 

d2 

81 

Sw 


I31 


u a cs 

ofli  p 
torf  it 


O O m 

S'  9 

$9* 

d r$ 
•°  0) 

3 ® g 

d d s 
O “ V 

.»  « 
£ ^ *o 


-h  o'C 
.«  to 
c c 

S © 


G 3 « £? 

3 fl  # ® 

to  > ^ 

-P  ? d 

+J  ® 42 

d .2^'S 

d^.££ 


43 
* 

44  5 * 
o 3 £ 
3 ill? 

a 

.da 
>.»8 
® a 

3-si 
p«« 
. 8© 
c .5 

48  ^ 'P 
d 

c-dS 

h d 
O <D 


A •£ 'd 

gss 

i«*s. 


5 S 


1 C$  > 

4d  ±d  5 Cd 

w o 

4ti  ^ 

X P 

>> 

but  no 

corn, 

:,  sunflo 
aflr,  b; 
r seed 

corn, 
wild  bi 

corn, 

flower, 

r„  barle 
r seed 

iliJ 

.eked 

seed, 

icked 
t,  sun 
5722 

tG  ® 
=3  d £ 

f1  4x1  o 

5 P3 

4 G 

■gS  es 

*d*S 
.H  *t 

>>  s 

® —■  _,  .5 

SSl,, 

*S|S 

.-43  £ ® 

•s  * s 


4*3  - 
'P 


O -0 

o*S 

G3  d 

G3  o 

3 

® 'a  s 

G ® 

G m 

H 

a 

Jl  0)  § 
d w w 

43  a 

>•  5n 

£ . 

« 

6« 

OJ  d 

i! 

d 'O 
G | 

rye, 

owei 

oal 

43  ” 

tn 

. P 

bo 

G § J 

^ W 

u d 

G 

<G 

d 

SS 

5, 

d * ^ 

C d 4s!  o 
d p d 
flUa 


© « 
+j  _r  an  y 
d d ® ® 

2 ® Sc 

cSss 


.hS 

d £ 
m ^ +J 

fH  O O 
^ rrn  rn 


'S  d w d a) 
0)  <D  +i  <D  rj 
^ ,G  !> 

°£  * 


d« 
OP  c 
^ G 


*h  aj  n 
o <p  w 

^ w 

G*  d 


LTD 

C ^ ^ 

S S 8Q0 


© d ® TO  ro 

d d.4S  m 01 

d 43  ® c G 

43  s>  d G G 

!>  p t;  d d 

t>  O 02  02 


§ 3* 

P o . 

frt«c’3 
'P  > .5  32 

d 3T  Qj 

4*  5 * 

o « . X 
d 5 » a 

$*§* 

GO  || 
d G?  U . 
41  G «® 

£ ® * 


d to  , 

■a  d 


G*  43 
o 4s 


48  <c  i d 

C P 03 

. G d •- 
G to 
P 
O 

d - d .« 


St. 
d o 
~ rp  d 


be  d 

C 5G 


^ d « 
<#  t.  G 


£ rf 


d fe 


44 

o „ 
M .»  n G d 
* O g 43  m 

C4  !j“ 


G 

w d 

h rs 


u d 34 

f> 


'P  O 
. d d . 

48  i 


t3  d 
d 43 
G44  £ 
4*1 
E E « 

d d p 
to  43 

•S  d 'O 

TO  <D  •— • 


g © it- 


'd 

G ®- 


d -£  d 

P C r> 


;S  E Q 

^ bX  B 

Z 52 

a)  03 

o*  o »d  o 

« 43  d h 
02 


,r?  ’“J 

CO  co’ 


£5 

G«2 


a 

>S  G 
G d 
d43 


^ e; 


> r 
W o 
rO 

P tuo 
O G 

'd.a 

«2  a 

>.g£ 

a)5>0 

S O-^ 


fm 

o o 

ati 


rO'3ro: 

8 d<c  SV 

jCSro^ 

M fl  ~CZ2  p 
<-1  « 2 w>  d 


oo 


6 2 ■3^. 

O hsPQ 


a § §i  g 

■S  5 pq  « piq 


53  00  Q 

& ® 
■fr  ® r1 

lO  so  j> 


Irt  Ift  rH 

t-ioo 

d d i 

’>">  ! 
to  to 
G G 1 
C3  OS  to 
>>a 

WHg 

* *Q) 

6 6 § 

ra,G  . 

O o ri 

a>  o Jz 

<D  O)  O 
^ ^ ^ 
cd  C3  . 

!>f>g 

•2.2d 

43  43  d 

ooo 


3 fe 
S 8 


a 

p- 

W 

G 

O 

a 

*3 

G 

O 

'z. 

* 

? 

pq 

6 

© 

d 

o 

1 

6 

r n 

-M 

Q 

_G 

d 

'S 

G 

=3 

B 

o 

ld 

s 

GO 

cc 

So 

3^ 

G 

« 

pH 

d 

<N  CO 

00  So 


Is  fe 


T3  d 
CD  a> 
02  fcj 


P-G3+3 

O -g 

Q q 02 

a 

iS  43^  g 
o3 
<3 


Ph  Ph 


d o 
d d 


d 02 
02 

a 

G^ 

d “ 


co  H 


T3  73  HG 
d d d 
C COj 

pp  pp  pp 


S)  _d  o 

3 3 3 

ooo 

'OTSTJ 
G G G 
OOO 

a a a 


6<£ 
- o 


>.Ph 

d >> 

a3 

o o 
O Ph 


O -r 


QfiO  dO 
W 


o o 


+S 

+H 

4H 

© 

o 

O 

© 

o 

o 

o 

o 

& 

tuo 

tuo 

bo 

tuo 

be 

tuo 

tuo 

bo 

H 

W 

P3 

W 

>. 

>> 

>> 

>. 

d 

d 

"d 

=d 

ft 

Q 

fi 

O 

tt  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished  -B8  6%  tons  removed  from  sale.  Labels  6640  replaced  by  No.  6781 

257  Relabeled  No.  8242 


TABLE  IV.— Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918  (continued) 


132 


a J 


TO  to 

£ bo 
o C 


TO 
TO 

£ TO  y 
w .2^-2 

TO  y 3 TO 

.2  *3  go's 

t)  5 ™ 

£ ’ o n 

he  g TO  d 

- 

TO  o “ 

•S 

s .2  © 0 

.TO  toR  w 

^ is  <u 

* TO* 


'O  <D  0) 

Eg" 


'g-a  ® 

TO  TO  y 

W © 

ft 


punoj 


paa^uB 

-aeno 


punoj 


paa^uB 

-aBno 


•^uaa  aad 
aan^siO]/\[ 


_s 

© -TO 
T!  © 
H © 
5 to 
•°  TO 


!h  . 

(TO  t3 
TO  © 
^ 2 


o ^ 
°<§ 

'g  TO  « 
*M£ 


TO  7 Pi 

^ to  Q 

o CD 

■TO  w 
..  >£  TO 
TO  y © 

^Ja 

^ d 
P*  CQ 


d 

► 0) 
Is 

CD 
~ CD 
U M 

<G  £ 
d ^ 

w 
-'d 
C 0 


'd  > 

3 s 

d S 


d 0 

5-5 


c 

TO 

■*  -d 


5 

> cu  X 
^ W y 0 


Ah  .'d 

°s 


ri  O 0 


rrt  TO  ° 
X 44  CO 

Pj  £>  in 

£ ~ Q 
° 3 
+j.’Q  TO 
TO  m y 

-TO  TO  g 
t>  0 TO 

t>  02 


^ S 'S 

_ 7 © 

T3  !>  0 

0 ^ w 

X 'O  _ 

2 © y 2 vP 
TO  to  <y  6"' 


o bcQ 
« a 


TO  y y 
y y _i 
£ U R 
■>  w co 
P*  CO 


© tc 

: 0 
) 

3 'd 


CD 

^ fe-TO 

C m 


TO  „ 

■a  “ ^ u 

p.  y © © 


.*  to 
y 

TO  TO 
u o 


sills 

I TO  ° ° 

HISS 

^|Bs| 

» £ o ■“  - 

TO  2 ® - 


2*3  To  TO 

Jgl 
Ss=  = 

^ aS  y M 

c<  S " +r 
£ E to  tj 

O 60  ^ y 

-4J.E 


tfl 

^ s ^ 


S 


tc  'To 

^ s 

C y 
^ fe 


“’’y 

0 £|p 

y © 

© rTO  W 

TO  , ^ TO 

2^  2 S 

e^j  2 8 
02  l>  02 


CO  00  <M 


CD  (MO 


2 

<+H 

1 

> j 

H 

W 

m 

T3 

1 

1 

1 

r 

! 6 

6 

0 

Lh 

d 

CJ 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

O 

O 

■ CO 

0 

m w 


a 

uopoadsuj 


>1  © 

TO  TOR 

w > 


l> 

•lw 


co  ^ 

1 i 


Ss 


8 8 


g I 


7 

© 

Ph 

o°8 


TOT 


Wg-O  r 
.Sro 

OhS° 


<«! 


";C 

S TO 
O 


|Z«|  w 

l|o'o  O 

W ^ 1-5  o 


<0  © ® 


3'  02  02  "S  £ • 


TOR 

-'O  ■ 


a 2 >> 
0 

O TO  2 

'Pm 

>> 

'TO 

'TO 

+3 

®a-s 

WoS 

S 

^ 002 

eg  TO 

TO  >> 

>» 

d 4^ 

0 

TOR  W g 

TO 

TO  W 

P5 

.SJ  pq 

W 

PQ 

2 ‘“’to 

sa.° 

>PM 

® B 

3 o § 

> O TO 

gm§ 

o « 

m 


00 


o o 


PH 

,© 

2 

«r  r 

TO  ^ © 

TO  .02 

B-tor  „ 

S bfl.S 

© 

tc 

.TO 

O" 

O t* 
bc^ 

S TO 

>> 

3 

© • . 

to  |-i  Ah 

0 

O Lh 

© 

TO 

5 

Q TOR  °> 

8hO 

0 -3 

O 0 > 

0 0 

4->  P-> 

c8  03 

F-h  Ah 

0 

© 

TO 

0 

0 

O 

|iS& 

2 

TO 

0 

be 

0 

rr  0 
S Ah 

« cu 

o.H 

fcH  fH 

0 

Ah 

© 

N 

‘C 

*7  3 -a 

TO  P TO 

TO  TO  O 

s ss 
g-0.2 

© 

0 

a 

“c 

TO  ea  f-i 

§2.S 
3°  3 

O O 

mm 

.0  0 

0 c 

pq 

•q  i-q 

t-q 

TO 

Ah 

5 0 

»p 

© 0 

33 

pq 

O 

0 

s 

o o 


Ah  Ah 


133 


■OfiC 

u 

© O’" 

£ C-0 

O © 
(C  3 33 

5-qS 

a a 

“ 'd  ® 

© 

o‘TH 

gd« 

:sf 

+j  a a 


,B  t^'O 

> © a 


p a 

O V 

<a  rs  • 

a ,H 


" ®d 
• a oi 

§-£ 


5 a 
'O 


£ -a  - 

<a  v 

d © oc 
isj  +s  -m 

^ a a 
- a o 
a h • 
s-  03  rrt 
o a ~ 

dJ 


© ©•« 

| a -a 

5 « <u 
a££ 
a s -g 
“ St  £ 

^ S3 

a h . 

931 
* J 

5 S.B 


G £ 


* w o' 

* bJD  ^ 

I a 

0)  i 

£ G 
Jl  <c 


g 

■a 


a & 

° Ti  a 

° a ® 
■a  c3» . 

d ^ 13 
.2  (B  © 

o tc 

gMS 

o 


>3  fc  1 
0)  © < 
S-o* 


a o h sa 

J)  oi  8 fi  « q 

a;  u Q3  a a;  w 
■p  o"H« 

a a » 
a ^ a a 

^ id 'd  j d <D 

a 2 g © a a 

U 5 n « in  a 

1>  w 


g -a  . ■a 
* a -a  2 
„ © © X 

u Q)  a-  ^ o 

■gslsg 

>S*o 

.-w-a  s - 

g a - g -m 

(j  » , 2 ij 
o^-g  2 o 

.a  > 2 r.a 

^a^ 


a o 

a g 

© 

x 

& G 

qa 

g ^ ^ S3 

P M <NI 
£0000 

SjQ  0 o 


>>  a 

« a 


g a 

Cu  <i) 

^ a 


a * 


ir 


-3 

© © 
© X 


8-S 
.6  - 


g £ 


O <1)  (1)  w 

SSS.8 


fe  W fe. 

£ be  P 
g a 

© © © _ 
X © X to 

CJ  £_.  O '*—> 


S| 

■§1 

£ S| 

- O !- 


© )H 

a © 


-a  -a  jr 

, © © o 

J © ^ c 

! | a a 
1 a mi 
o 


a © a 


ei  u 

b « a 

4*  £-® 

a 0 

. £ 
+J  © 
W a -r 
© © a 


<D  0) 

■g2 
£ © 


g © 

Sf 


<a  ^ 
a 2 
^ £ 
o 

<M  <e 

o a 
a 


c *a 
u a 
o P. 

© ft 


X 

a o 
© G 

5 fi 


a a 
£ a: 
o > 


'd  a 

© 42 

a 'a 
^ © 
© ©. 
© 

+r  a 

© 5 
5 2 
> ^ 


in 


© a 
a;  a 


o o o © 

© © <~>  o 


a w 
Mo 


na  c ^ > aa 
> o o 2 > 


a 

03 

£1  “ a 
© fl  > 

a 

03 

T3 

C3 

a 

> 

G 

•4G  ~ 

> 

G 

n 

© 

©> 

a 

r 

g •*  6 

OQ 

CD 

G 

6 

O 

5 0 0 
S t 'd 

6 

0 

£ 

a 

=8 

bo  © 

, - a © 

>h  .S  rr> 

«8 

<D 

a 

G 

fl  p 

<u  M 

te  fl 

s o 

P * 

=8 


Oag 


8.S.a:3 

•s-£2a 


m m & 


K °[> 

slo  W 

W&O  fc 


T3  a 
a « 
§W 

Wo 

5 a 

a o 
0 02 
CO 


$ 

e nnw, 


Baa 
So  0 

Ojfl 

s“w 

3 2 © 


« G 
G 


1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 1 1 

CO  CO  1 

1 

1 

1 

a « 

s 

5 

s 

T3  ^ 1 

1 

1 

0.2  ° 
CJ  r° 

1 

G 

a 

1 

G 

a 

© 

'd 

<D 

S3 

<D 

<D 

QJ 

a 

<D  <D  rpf 

CD  CD  ^ 

GG  © 
XX^ 

.5.5  a 

„C3  X3  <D 

T3 

QJ 

QJ 

Ph 

s. 

.2  -x 
a 53 .2 

a cs  ^ 

Gao 

S 

sn 

w 

.6 

OQW 

W 

_B 

’©  a 

.® 

.2 

0 

© 

.2.2  0 

.© 

a a 

0 

^ ^0 

‘S 

G 

Q 

Ph 

Q 

GOG 

Q 

a G 

^ Jh 

“O 

a 

o o 

GM 


oG 

o.| 

08O 


/I 


5 

Or^O 

G ^ 


3 G 


- a 

O O' 
bDCC 


•SI’S 

fln  3 

T3  G 
W 


* Not  tagged  261  2%  tons  returned  to  mfrs. 

ft  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished  . 262  5 3/]0  tons  removed  from  sale.  Relabeled  No.  8633 

25®  Relabeled  with  No.  5647  203  Conflicting  guarantees 

200  914  tons  removed  from  sale.  Relabeled  No.  8633  264  Conflicting  guarantees.  Relabeled  No.  5863 


134 


« 35 
fl  ** 

_ O 03 

5 B 3 

3 -e 

|jg  g 

o ^ ” 

+->  CO 

“go 

33  w 

£!  o> 

C » 


03  c* 

'o+'g 

P d y 


punoj 


-jBno 


putlog 


paa^ire 

-a^no 


*^uaa  jrad 
aan^sioj\[ 


a 

uorpadsuj 


X 

>>  r^J 


« £ 
+->  o 
d c 


X * 
o « 

O 


03 


JS'se# 

0J  ,©  4)  43 

fc.  03  it  fe 

dTS  * a p 

X3  « 2 *g 

® £ * Ml 

«‘S  I a 

+j  ® r—  C 

ogsS-S 

„ bU  « ^ 
H.  ^ bD 

« g^- 

gSSsj 

Os 

c^2 

in  y >H  «3  CC 

O fl  > 

°°  « 

ni:i 

«”§g,S 

Sh  t,  +J  Sh  43 
« oj  £ a p 

» O *N  » 

Se-'gS 

t> 


P 03  C 

-fi  33  P 

fe  o 
*0  ? ff 

03  P 

JP  -d  “ 

3 o) 

ax  to 

« O !h 

O ~ 


o d 

rH  ^ 1 


. 03 

.+->  d 

■*d  o 
™ m a; 

03  33  £ 

p 3 5 
!>  C P 
l>  GO 


o CP 

■^1 

P5 


tp  n 
d d 
X © 


73  <d  'p  ^ 

0)  <p  ^ lO 
4*!  03  03  o 
o ® +3  to 

P Jj 

o^2Q 

° 03  S 
£ * “ 
+j  o So 153 
P *9  ._  03 

03  P -£  3i 
43  3 ® £ 

“ s d 
t>  02 


OQ 

2\ 
•P  03 
£ £ 
O 
.03 
s-  C 

d “ 

d aj 


4s! 
73  ® 
© 5 
4S  -® 


03  03 


O 03 

S $5  £ 

flel 

s«§S 


d to  d 03 

03  03  r| 

43  £ 43  % 


33  «2 

i1-!  bo 


3 6* 

<0  baW 

9 ?? 


03  Oo 

$<  o 

Ph 


ftOfl 

£43^ 

6°  2 

a 5? 00 
So®3 
0 .9  "2 
« 9 
^.9  p 

bflO  O 


.9  * 

O rH 


So 

03 

<d 


03  rr 

M3  o 

P £ 

S s 
£ § 


0 

O 

p,  ! 

1 

1 

- 

_*_jPh 

O 73 

0 

9 

P4 

73 

a 

1 i 

O i 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

w V 
a?  Cjj 

g 

IjH 

d 

m 

< 

O 'O  1 
! 

> - ! 

S >> 
pq +i  73 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

CJ 

fla 

^ 2 
r.  a 

og  5 p 
373 

d 

73 

PH 

d-l 

>.  0 fl 
'P02  « 

a 

d 

3oS 

S 

a 

Q +-* 

d cc 

tri 

s w 

W 

'd  9 

Sh  1—1 

O 

0 

O 

03  +j 

d P 

4l«°o 

73  " 

flgcfi 

fc.  03 


03  U 
03 

73  ^ 'P 

03  O 03  C 

^ 53  43  03 

« e « 2 

d 3 P o 
h ® r . ® 


o - 

o 03 

bfi 

C 


P 03  d 03 

0343  0343 

43  > 43  > 


^ P 
p o‘° 
W boP3 

05  ?3  « 

<s 

d O 

w 


i3S 


* Not  tagged  260  Conflicting  guarantees.  Relabeled  No.  8511 

285  1400  lbs.  removed  from  sale.  Returned 


136 


td  S 
£ 2 


a 

i! 

3 0 
o*° 

O 

.2  S 

a s 

P 

C » 


punoj 


paaiire 

-aeno 


punoj 


paa^uia 

-**“0 


rpiao  aad 
aan^sioj^ 


a 

uopyadsui 


IwogjO 


•p  a> 

£ £ 


tin  cd 
cd  43 
^ ° 

C <d 
p a> 

O CD 

v co 

<d  h 
0)  <v 

J*  t 


Sfc 


a 

u 

o 

o 

C$ 

73  <d 
<D  - 

X 


(V 

X 

£ 

X 

*1 
S cd 


>>  S * 

<D  0)  ® 
g <d  co 
5 a>  o' 
®+j« 

CO  0) 

*i  h 3 S 

<C  <D  G . 

ir«3 

S 3 S j 


O 0 


CD 


tc  <d 
d £ 
X o 
„ <G 

a £ 

P =S 
o to 


CD 


_ P 


4F 

- M2 

cd  ^ « 

<D  „ ^ 
43  »“ 

£ d Q 
o M 

^ -d  cd 
X ~ CD 

cd  5 £ 
S cd 
O M 


« - p o 

* ° u g 

+J  . +5  +J  42 
cd  o cd  cd 
k =3  a>  <d 
X C^il® 

% 


cd  to 
o >> 
o 

ko 

<G 

cd  <H 

X rH 


~ £ 
J o 
cd  *3 
<d  G 
43  F 


A4 

g -d 


CO 


CO 


© © © 

o’  o o 


io  o its 


1 

l 

1 

CO 

Pi 

O 

03  U 1 

so  : 

o 

1 

l 

T3 

>. 

p 

5s  ! 

O 

1 

1 

a 

a?  • 

~ a)  i 

.a 

l 

1 

<H 

a 

o 

s 

cd 

a" 

o 

PM 

CCdg  1 

'd  F 

1 £ 

m 

<43 

«8 

<rl  d 

«8  p to 

03 
«-e  O 

Sm  | 

bo 

<D  4-> 

<P  -M 

a 2 a 

^ > p 

W03  « 

5 a s 

s 

°0D  ^ 

m g 

a 

’Sh 

$ 

F*3 

« 

PM 

a> 

R >» 
a«2 
.2  « 

Wm.  Ro 
Belt  Ele 
Indians 

a w 
o fl 
aj  o 

•«§ 

<o.2 

02  r-H 

P!S 

gW 


T3 

<£) 

Ph'C 

_ i=i 

.a  2 

2 a 
a s 


§35$  *S$  § 

SoS  g 


a Ph 

? £ 
O <o  in 

*<9f 

<U  «H 


> g 

CO  cd 
1=1  ^ 


oW^ 
2 « 


cd  o 

a « 

a* 
6 « 
fafl  od 

! fe 

i 02 


is-a 


P ^ 

<c  > 

cd  X 

x « 


u T3 

O V 

O . V 

^ -d  S 
% <o  d 

<o  <D  t, 

x co  a 


V 0>  J5 

^ o 

/coG 


<d 

i 

i 

1 

1 

a 

JBQ 

i 

1 

cd 

o 

i 

4^> 

•S 

p 

cd 

03 

.S 

-d 

a 

73 

03 

O 

a 

PM 

X 

43 

1—1 

>. 

o 

3 

i 9 

H 

a 

P Td 

o 

>»  'S 
a J 

S 03  rT 

i t: 

> a 

> a 

l| 

1 

’ ^ 

i a 

71 

!J 

5 

S 

d .2 
s o 

a 

cd 

a 

9 

o 

'S  £ s 

2 6 

GG  ^ 

: « „ 

1 £V  GG 

2 SO  =3 


ed 

03 
oa  cd 
te  § 

| PM 
O 


X3 
O 
M O 

SpH 


u 

O -F 

O .F 

•a  od 

r^H  J-i 

"S 

^ 8 5 

PH  OO 

Q B 

4=3  O 

s £ cd 

s ho 
g cd  bn 

m 

u 

03  S c3 

s JJ1 

PM  0'S 

03  ^ do 

oS  52 

<D  r\ 

is 

pqa 

pi  t; 
o.2 

42  <o 

43  <o 

<8  g S 

82  t» 

s B 

SPP  s 

^Eh15 

•S'g 

s ® 

cd  5» 

« « 

WP5 

<25 

P^ 

PM 

a 5; 

a pn 


bo — 

•S§ 

S P-i 
S 3 
d S 
£PM 
Ph 


a 03 
asg 
og 

O^-d 
=3  cftf 
a x3 

S Od  to 

tn  S g 

(hQ-P 

qj  ^ <o 

"£  PM 
P M 


a • « 

^a02 
5 -a 

sag 

^.§o 

Si's 

s « 

Ph 


Qnrrt 

o'-1 -i 
O rfi 


] dc» 

:a<i 


"3'd 
43  o g 


m”" 

Safe 

=3  cd  02 

^ fl03 


9 a 


.90 


i37 


AAQ 

M W CQ 


CD  0)  0 

sag 


[gSS. 


© ^ © 
1 o « © a 
© ^ 


1 © ^ 
K W t* 

O 


© 

43 
■£ 
5S-S 

o p 
43 
£ 


© iq 


11 

fl 

■£ 

'O 


rf  © 

S « 

• ° 2 
W£-j 


o 

s 

tC  ^3 
ci  ® 

kj  © 

4*  m 
fl  a; 

S £ 


0 £ 


j©  C 

id  0 O ^ 

d © © 


i © a 


<G  43 
© O 

X 


O © 

a 43 
£ 
x 


i 'd  bs  dJ 
! © 2 © 
i © eg  i£ 

“ s 
I u M 

© 


_ - © 
Sh  SJ  © fe 

© a © 5 


£ 

O E tH  - 
a o a)  aa 
c fe*1- 

a+I°  .% 

JgSal 

© 43  © © * 


dJ  § ^ 

2 w «> 
rS  LTD 

o -lO 
grip 
o © M 
rC  M 
^ £ © 
© © 

© 2 <3 
£33 

r 42  d 

> EG 


5 £ 

43 


a 

^ a a 

© «3  42 
£3  © 

43  a 

4X1 


£ ■d  s-T 

d ^ 

32  © tp 
© © c3 

5 0 

43  «,S 

£ 2 

0 ^ 

c <u  . 

Oo- 

© ^ 

43 .. 

0 02  a 
c H 

O © 


<C  'd 
© © 
© © 
45  m 


£3  © 

a p 


£ 

© af 


a >fl  a 3 
w£  © QB 

CD  y 


03  J U ^ +JP 

o 3 M fd  w J 

£©3sj  .g 

d fe  a O fe  c3  § 

■g  * 33°  15  « 

^ S'o'ia 
TO  © 5 © 

©43-^43 

a o © o 

f^W^,  O ^3  P ^ P oj  ^ 

wo  o EGl> 


«s 


- 

fel 

© a 

■“  5 


O a 

0 © 
S| 

. « 

<3  b 


a *d 

0)  © 

43  © 


1 I 


bD  « 

•dH  rQ 

p.  © 


d a 'o 

w I;  q; 

42  g © 

* 

© ^ 

tc  (C  © 

a =3 .2 

■*  43  c 


£c 


.a  p- 

to  © _ 
d3  43  M 
© o 0 
© © © 
w t,  O 

O 


3 Q l 3 
© 1-1  o © 
^ « X 

| ®3* 


o y 

-a  ic  'o 


d d 
© © . 

43  © 33 
© w t* 

© <?  to 

5-  C © bib 
u © 


Sh  Ih 
O 3 
© O 

?S 


^ 'd  7 


d 

© w 

43  43 

a ^ y .. 
fe  © h 2 

w w © to 


© 'E  43  © 

©Cot, 
43  © © © 
k M 5 M 

i>  O 


d > © “ 
© £ © © 

^*=1“ 


(N 


00 


Ckl  (M 


CO  CO  o 00  CO 


O 00 

o d 


to  Ol 

<d  d 


oo  oo 
d d 


o 

flO 

O k^ 

pt 


rfk 


O to 

a s 

o rg 

43  w 
O - 

w S 


id  00 

3 © 


0=8  !®  a 

© 

M 

1 «« 

da'g  ®a8° 

O 5 

rd  C3  OJ 

=8 

>> 

a| 

© g 

^•2  ©Jq^ 

6 

© 

§ 

s 0 

O >, 
0<d 


«8  P =8  ^ 


£ i 


d i 
> 

£ P 
W ^ 


dO 


30  30 
(i|  aCL|  ft 


£? 
Cl  2 


d 

£ 

O 

0 
cn  -p 
p c n 
<V  O) 

°Z 

© 

O 

=8  o3 

^OQ  ^ 

+0 

m 

© © 

3 3 3 3 

O © O © 

32  > 

► w 

d 

fH 

© 

"m 

£3 

a a 

1 -S  d 

l-S 

M 

rnd  aid 

§ r 
© 0 

cn 

O 

a 

0 

s 

Ph 

. d 

OW 

d 

42  . 

m< 

Eh' 

©d  ©i2 

P3 

>Q 

H 

s 

| 

1 

1 

O 

05 

05 

s 

© 

H 

CD 

@ 

1 

§ 

gi 

Ss 

3 i 

s 

8 

r—H  rH  rH 

CO  JO  CO  i0  >Q 

S 5 © 3 


i-ii 


44 

44 

| 

1 

1 

! 

j 44 

c 

0 

43 

| 

d 

0 

43 

+h 

| 

d 

O 

| 

4^ 

1 

d) 

© 

5 42 
| 
i'g 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

*£ 

O 

! pi 

!g 

p>  w 

*Ph  ^ 

C5§ 

'C 

0 

d 

0 

jJ  d 

«0 

O- 

d5 

0 44 

d 

a» 

2 

0 

02 

P 

O 

I d 

1 a> 

1 CD 

1 S 

j EG 

! 3 

cn 

.3 

cn 

.3 

cn 

.3 

Ph 

jS 

4443 

djj 

42 

it 

■p 

! 44 

3 

3 

p 

S 

(h 

© 

! 43 

I <y 

0 

l 

t’p 

>»  O 

io 

O 

O 

0 

s 

."S 

cn 

cn 

02  j£ 

a ^ 

! 44 

a 

^3 

X3 

0 

!0 

^.a 

a 

dPH 

1 § 

' d 

1 0 

0 

0 

0 

© 

! 0 

nd 

_.  © 

3 

p 

gg 

a 42 

1 42 

c3 

p 

0 

CZ2 

"S 

Ch 

O 

02 

c3 

O 

02 

44 

44 

13 

i3 

% 

Ph 

go 

^42 

O 

rg 

OH 

« a> 

a Cc 
Mo. 

1 Wil 

II 

P 

S 

P 

a? 

X3 

S3 

42 

43  j3  4c 

43 

© 

! S 

r^-M 

O 03 
rt  M 

S.  0 

c3 

Cd 

0 

Cd.S 

S3 

H .s  ^ 
d dPn 

1 T3 

1 OP 

1 0 

! ^ 

0 

C3 

0 

03 

O 

o3 

©O  ©O  ° 

Oc/2 

02 

”6 

^543 

'pd 

a 

£ 

§d 

-M 

*3  • 

«i  - . 
’§>3'd  10 

a S 

« ^ Ph  P*h 


«66 


sg- 


'd'd 

J J 

R HH 

43  43 
© _© 
33 
00 


i § 

I Eh  £ 

| 

■8 
© 

^ C3 


! o -2 .2 


d o‘i 

o *> 

O co  a 

t,.H43 
© 42 


(^Ch 


g 43Q  2 tut 

d (3  W d •- 


3 w 
a 


2 +»  2 +j  S .-2  2 4J  S 4^ 
3t3fci3t3o3o 
43043(^33043  o43  o 
zj  Q y y u 

c/}  C»  CZ2  CQ  02 


cn  c/j 

a a 

03  o3 

PMCM 


OT  <& 

a .2 

03  !h 

ChPh 


a «<oS® 

O 0 03  bo  C3  SP 

ts®  S-2  s-2 

3 OG  CQ 


^ . >. 
-c  >>a 
gM  o 

Eu  . P 
R O O 

M © © 
C3  Opt! 
b04d 
3 w m 

“is 

!«§ 
eg  Oh 
« 


PQ 

w« 

©O 

0 

S 3 


ft^ 


ft  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished  267  Relabeled  No.  5371 


TABLE  IV.— Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918  (continued) 


138 


'o  hi 
2 a,  +j 
g o>  c 
§ 

L,  0 

O g ® 

® 3 ,3 
c “I 


_ O CD 

Cert 

S S <u 
o 42  M 

§ ,,  2 


®.s  c 

'ODD 

g s? 

r > Jh  ^ 

0 ftS 


puno^ 


paarnre 

-anno 


putlog 


paa^ire 

-a«no 


g ^ 

133 

- 0) 


s-.  m 

§ s 


<a 

O 0 

ft 


It  * • 

& £ +3  X 

44  So 
- w 0 ^ 
ft 

*S  M d ^ ft 
d " 4)  C rt 
44  « 

44  m 

fi  d 

g 0>  r-  ft  CD 
£ CO  .rt  g CO 


d a)  o > 

o>  > C 


of 

s- 

w o3 

+->  L( 
c3  0) 

3 

CO  g 

"ft  w 

TO  C/2 

O ^ 

03  •+-» 

O _ 

_ g 

^ 0 

CC3 

o> 

5^ 

2 00 

tft  ft 
ei  ft 
44  d 


d ,e 

<D  o 

44 

o „ 


oj  S3 

■u  « 
ri  ® 

°! 

»S 

s-<  S® 


^ to  Q 


CD  M d ™ 4C 


TO  OP  7*  TO  02  ^ 

02  r*  03  *-< 

U3  rft  rft  O rC 

W t>  W ^ M W 


ca  ^ 

;3  <p 

S 0) 
^ 02 


^ 2 

44  ” 
o r 


,d 

u-  £ 
S 44 


c r 
d s 
44  44 
w 

- S 

333 


s - 

44 


C ® 

c-a 

rt  £ 

44  44 
v 
- s 

ft  CO 

Sh  ” 

o 

d 0 

V 

«S  d 'd 

•rt  a)  ® 

a 44 

u u 


o a) 
£• 
■ T o 


IIP 

°sf* 

n:* 

d&l'g 

S3  _*  -rt 

c ® ^ a 

tC  43  a « 

rt  fe  “ 'w 

44  44  o’" 
.§2* 

1 

S”  .-g 

S-g’Sa'S 

gSs-g 

'S  cd  irtj 
o £-§.£ 
•g  <u  s -rt 

§ js  ® 


s 

s4  -g 

, c a 

d « 
;*2 


CO 


® 


rt  Q) 
44  £ 


qj 

rtS* 
4 C -« 


„ O 


d 

5 S 


>d  cs 

OJ  0) 

44  rC 

S ^ 

44 
O 

fe  aS  -d 
S o>  ^ 


>»  X 
01  o 
T fn 

i a 


°-d 

•i  ® 
g 0 

K CO 
tj'  *-l 

c £ 

rt  £ 

. c 

d CD 

|.-S 

, £ d 2 
: o44 


® fl  ® rt  •a  “ 

^ 5-g  £ is  u 

d«g  5 gt  ® 

tn  ® h ° g CD 

S3  _g  >, 
C S -c  ■“  o 

4361® 

rt  C 44  cd^ 

2 £ 0 § «« 
r s3  s £ o n 
^ o 


<£  ^ 
® ® 

44  £ 


c c 

3 
O CD 


44 -a 

o ^ 


e3  •d 
<d  ~ 

t * 


•^uaa  J3(J 
aan^sioj^ 


a 


rt  JD 


03  & 

W3 


•a^  -S 


3^ 


a 

uopyadeuj 


I^PU^O 


d 

«T3 
CD  qj 

44  _0> 
O^H 
ft 
03 

fl  ® 

.2  rt 

T3  h 


1 t>.  ! 

1 1 

i M j 

1 | 

1 

1 W I 

1 

1 

3 > i 

■5 

03 

(-1 

£ 

d 

ft^ 

as 

o 

O a 
^3  o 
<D  tj 

<D  03 

® S 

d«2 


! s •d 

a 


-CO 

M44 


>> 
d 
rt 
ft 

1 « 
03 

W 03 
pu 

03  (-• 
03  • ^ 

►5  s 
<=^3 

.a§” 

03 

<5}  ft 

P a 

§^.2 
d o 


-c  « 

- d 

dS 
W -ft 

„o 


'3  ^ 


ft  o 
o ^ 

D *f 

M ^ Tb 
osg 

ft  rtpXJ 

-d-o 
g ft 
^ °S 

.a  as 

rt  rtoQ 

0^4) 
W 03 

dw0 

Jh  03  ft 

lfe3 

& 


139 


2 s 

O ft  .2 

2 ft 

° “re 

H g 

>>d  ti^ 

2«|1 
u w 

C'O  -« 

cd  ft  to  g 

* § 


Ss 

o £ 
o o 


>; « 


2 w 


4 . «"  1. 
L-c^fl 

5 c$  « 2 

s « 85| 

. & . *« 
r Z,  -t->  fa 


p ft  es 


M 

ft  « 


«5  8 

cd  2 s- 

xO  ^ ft 
ft  a 

p^ 
o ^ S3 
O 6B  ® ^ 

m .S  OO 


CO  ■« 

® te 
^ <p 


£ O 
p O SO 

1 ft  Q 

1 s 


cd  »-r 

Oi  o 


■Sffss 

cd  • 8 k 
p <^>  cd  bo 
03 


bjo  bjo 


C G 

<d  a> 

oo  in 
o o 

£ *’  * 
h O O 
bjo  tn  ^ 

■ ft  ft 
^ ft  ft 
(U  <J 
c 


_,j-  -P  eq  oq 

IfSS 

^OP 

-a  x “ « 

ai  o P cd 

^ p,  0)  ® 

S 1 a s 

^ ™ d Oj 
U CO  CO 


>;  S ® 

oj  o i: 
8 » ja 

2ft 

■“  I ^ 

h " tc 

®vC)  ^ 


c . £ 

®g8 


tP  * 

s?  P 


-ft  8 


i2£$ 

cd  *" 
o <*> 


a-.  8 
rrj  a u ft 
® S’  ® ft 


32 

r * TP 


« OJU 

ft  ft 


-ft  - u 

+j  ft  111 
cd  a)  cd  > 
a>  a.  a>  S 

*£££ 


* a 
a 

„ „ cd 
bfl  ft 
o ® 

ftg^ 

o — < 

«v  § 

ft  cd  cd 
ft  ft  s-i 
2-P  o 
" 


«Tf£ 

o «> 

£ * 
ft  o 


eft  cd 
cd  ft 
* ^ 


r&  r& 

<P  0)  . 

^ <D 
O w 
Oj 


<D  ® 

•£  S o 


s = 


ts 


ft  -a 

S ft' 

-£  ft 
; c •S . 

ft  5 

T3  2 


rlsl-l 

!.“'  K § 
! ft  ft  h £ 5 

fill 

i o w cd 


o so  S 

S 4J 

S Sec 

S -W  Cd 

- S^l 


rg^-de 

° g 
X ft  S 
° ft  ft  c 
u +->  'w 
ft 
ft 


.5  eft 


, 

\& ~Z 

> M s 


'd  r a 
ft  b,  a 

ft  it 

ft  4J 

^ C re  © 
ft  P ft  c 
w 2 -*;> 

ft  ^ a 

c £ a rfi 
c .5  ft 
a ^ -c  « 


- -e  .5  g ’p 
ft  « 8 ft 


- > X .id  < g) 
ft  *1  O Cj  O ^ 


O ft  - 
ft  cd  C 
ft  ft  C 
ft  ft  3 


1| 

a b 

e ft  'p 
2 'P  <d 
ht"“  X 


! -P  uj  C 
. ft  tP  c ft 
» ftSr.3  9 


ft  Td 

-j  ft  a; 

o-P.* 


bco  H S 

C ^ +0  ft 

a ■ 2 •" 


'p 


O ft  o _ — 

ft  ft  w ^ 

y ft  ft  2 
“ ft^  * 


M 


CO  ft 

ft 

g ft 

ft  -r* 


ft  3 

ft  3 ft 


-ft  ft  CS  ft 
cd  43  O Si 
O xn  ft  ^ 


flP 
.8  ® 
hP  _>> 
-ft 

C3  55 


-M  K> 

ft  >1  ft 
ft  ft  a 
P c ft 


o fl 
a5 


03  “ 


a PM 

|| 

03  CO 

ws 

PM  5 


•p 

ft 

ft 

Ph 

08  TP 
ft  P 

|b 

S jp 


CO  o 

S” 


■g  fe: 

O 4P 
6JD 


co  o 
3 03 

O 


W be 


ft 

2 bfl 

o.fl 

ft^ 


|w 


53 

0 

T3 
TP  P 
P ft 
ft  w 

pq 

4P 

P 6 
O 03 
03 


$ J2 


SS  2 $$ 
1 S 


< 0-J  fc- 


I I 


a a 

53  oo 


:1  1 


2 ° 
« 55 
2 co 


^2 


--S  -s  « 


p pH 
0-2x3 
O o ft 

05  Pi  53 
8 C ft 

303 


p ft 
I— I ft 

Ph 


Ph  Ph 
4<!4s3 


OO- 


i -s 


1 g£  S| 


2 <j 


oo 


ft  ® ft  ft-P  g 

ft  ft  ft  ft 1—1 2 

<!<rt  P ffl 


ft  ft  ra 

S S p 
oo^ 
SMm 


o +-> 
ft  '►T 

PM  ^ 

t^TP* 
P g 
5 Ph 


^2 

pO 


2o 


2° 

Q£ 

t-3  "ft 
ft 


o o 

O PM 


§3 

P tM 

ft  cu 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918  (continued) 


140 


g © c 

g 

o g ® 

s * 3 

^ ft  ft 

| ti  -o 

o “ 
o ^ ” 

“Jo 
.ft  w 
£ © 
t-, 

r-  ft 


®.S  c 

'B  HMD 

So" 

o 

w ft 


© ft 

13  s 

o * 

ft 


puno^ 


paa^tre 

-JBtlO 


puno^ 


paa^tre 

-anno 


•^uao  aacl 
aan^sio]/^ 


. u X 
i cS  O 

J-gft 


ft 


ri  w 


O «J 


■d  - 

5 w 

O — 1 
“ <1) 

. w 
'd 
o , 

CD  ^ 

Ss 


® ft  ©’-i  * 
ft  .ft  3 . ■** 

o ^ ^ * £ 


IP  oq 
, £ 


^ m2,S^  i 

2 £ 'S  © 2 ® 

V,  2 P CB  ft  © 

g § 3 £ s 

•Q«'s£  * 

H 


fl§ 


- fi 


r O ^ rZt 

>i  W 'O 

4 ° >1  _.  c '* 

|SS,;§§S 

****** 
£3  © ,3s!  .5  5 

> X g 

P n O 

A <ufcS1'S 


ft 


oSS 
ftg 
> d 

_ w 


t1  <y  o 
R-  £ o 


£c3tS© 

® 832< 
£ 


S3 

. ss 
x £ 
£ 3 

p,  m 


a©3 
e-o  ££2 

£ ft  «3  P 33 

S'3*  . 3 

* « s 

-d  -a  « .2  « 

ft  S B ® 

ft  +3  ^ © 
ft  ft  -r  £ x 

0 ® b, s ® 

fe  bo 

. o -g  ** 


° • u'S 
£ "E  -|  a 
^.2  * 
t*  © "®  ft* 

sJH 

ft  n " 

© — “ 

fi-£.SS 
S a B fe 


'ft 


d © 

£.2 

2 x a ® 

£ 0 b*-M 
h ft  y £ 


& 


5?  s , 


i-  £^= 
;§2-s 

5 to  © 
i £ g§ 
I ft  .ft  "g 
1 © 

- ^VoS 
1 bxj  S5^ 

1 ' < o _ 


o 

£-ft  ° 
© © _. 
r © t3 

«H  -W  © 

fl 

* C3  0 


- „!*!*! 


o ft® 
ft  to 
o3 

© 


•flE 
y © es 

© © !3 

SC 


^ W M ^ © 


cti  n S 

O N A 


**  . 
-a 

© ® oj 
© it  © 

*5g 


..  £ a g ! 

^8HSS^g 
>;“§i - 
BSalSfS 

42  ^«sj  seg  ^©r 


t©  © 

© 33 
^ £ 


0 P 


c3  CO  *J  © 

2 ts  T S 
S © beg 

t>  CO 


e«  5 


02 
a O 

Q, 

> §• 
a fl 
w « 

+3rO 


6 

O 

© 

6 

Q 

s> 

P 

>i 

=8 

a? 

a 

r-<  1 

O 

fH 

O t3 

s s 

nW 

w 

■Sg 

N O 
^GQ 
Pi 


°a 
a o 


a d 
2 M 
M 


S § 


m i n jn 

t»  .©3  toft  toft 

03  > 03  > IS  > 

SZ  to  rj  to  ^5  tn 

°g  ogog 

© t>  © i>  « > 

gp  gpgp 


a 

uoiiaadsuj 


I^P®0 


« .ft 
8| 
j'-d 

^ s 

i-ip 


al 

£p 

°§s 

•gw 

§£ 


>>  ft3 
ft  . o 
cstOg 
ft,  ft  g 

S' 


S D 


O 

P cu 


.2 


W-g 
. © a 
s ^ © 


© © 
c a 
'S  s 
o o 


; ; j 

4^ 

1 

1 

1 

0 

O 

*C 

O 

1 

1 

< i 

; i M 

1 

1 

^ 'S 

^ a? 

-'O  g 

^2  2 
ft 1-1  © 
ca  „co 
ft  .ft  ^ 

a gf-a 

o d 'S 

w ^ 


. O 


§ S 

ft 

s .2 

I:J 


.a§g 

gw  2 
2 m 
w 


I4I 


1 td  -M 

^ <l)  S3 

© 

nd  "d 
© © d 

§R-° 

^©-0 

S’5* 

.5  © 

— G 

*H  0)  ° 

3 £ TO 

G © 

V 

w“  ^ © 

0'f 

rtj  H 

ft!  © 

a a 

let, 

wild 

lim 

0 ” tS 
_M  § 

• © 

3 ^ 

B d 00 

>>  F* 
5 x “ 

O 

TO 

H B 

b o 
a be 


o . ft 

°io 

a sl 

© Jh  2 - 

X 3 S 
® GG 

cj  OH 


ft  3 
B fi 


3 © 

5-S. 


'©  So 

a-  © 

g g 43 

o 

£ _ tc 
■ * g 
1 .5  © ® 


c£  s • 

3 « 

■*+;  £ 
«J  ft 
■M  ® ft 
3 g 3 
<u  £ 

- 


O 2 r< 

°?° 


b a 
5 ft 

•°  3 


Sh  r^J 
« © 
TO  0) 

G w 


o o 

yc 

c 

G 3 

X 

o 


a 

£0^ 


ftj  43  - 


W w W CQ 

<D  <1)0 

a >;  s s 


S » 

« p, 

<1 


s bo 

£ 25  © 
© 2 c 

1 1 
il  o 1 

< fj  3 5 

-g-°a 


v S 

|^Q  Q 

ft 

. r*  w w 

'd  <3  cj 

o 

^ w 0 4J  rti 

O +-»  Jh  -rn  — 

d ^ g ?H  £ 

&-<  O OJO  ^ 

O TO  EG 


?>§ 
0>  G 

c © 
o G 


0 .5 

G "" 


:J£?5 


bO  tn  00 

O 


“bo  ^ 
© 

£ o^ 
o ■*■> 

G w 

3C'o 


bfcr, 


£ g d 

Oft®. 

3 a B 

g cS  3 

w 


I di 

O 


>>  X S o 

® o S tS 

h ^ © 

3 ft  wo  g 

■“S  £ £ 


eft  G 
j <D 

x s 

- !_ 
c © 

>3  fe 


* 35 
2-® 

ft* 

ft© 

3 © 


Q g-g  Q 

© 3 

CO  £2  TO 


: s 

D d bo0 
M t> 


b S' 

t>0  cS 

m 


•8  .&*  « 

2 ® © a p 

°|!s  « 

43  g w «* 

2 3 s s *c  a 

l>  mm 


l|« 

G 

laj-^ 


a d 1 

©43-®  2 

■o  ©«  § 
3 G © ? 
© ' 


C G « 

gS 

*3  2 ►. 


3P5 


w 

43  ^ 0*  43 

43  3 S « 3 

•3  © o 2 © 

bo  £ £ Sojg 

£ £ 


; $ 

“■ge 
u © * 
2 6 £ 


'EfcS 

3^  o 

TO  'f  C 


ITO 


<M  CO 


CO  CO  CO  CO  CO 


1ft  00  o 00 
05  oi  05  00 


© 

K eg 
ft  2 


_©  1 

: 

ft“8  1 

2 * 

§ p o 

_3  o w 


G2 

Sl 


G ° £ rX  ' 
03^  ©u  ! 

=3 

«8  I 

fftSft 

3 3 

ub3sO 

> 

3 

p ft 

Ew 

- O G 

N “ 43 
43  G m 

"3  ao 

2 « - • ft 

M 

c3 

a g 

c3  H 

G - 

t3  ^ 


ft!  to  o 1 

§S°< 


G £: 
(3  H 


O 

OO 


W'S 

^3 
43  a 
to  53 
o 'S 
2 a 


4os- 

2-sgS§ 
wW.bog  s 

cq  • G 3 ^ 
©O  ©G  3 

»-s<! 


^.2 

3^ 


a © 


M 3 
^ ft 


'ft-5 

2 a 


^ 8 s 

1 

l 

» 

S S fe 

8 88 

O 

lH 

3 co 

1 

8^  S 

@8  B 

8 8 

i 

1 

1 

3 

1 

4-J 

0 

aT 

0 

G 

G 

OQ 

1 

G 

3 

© 

pq 

Ph 

t^| 

3 

3 G 
r>  c; 

3 

CO 

© 

0 

03 

© 

“2 

Eh 

© 

•G0 

ft 

.2o 

s 

w G 
bO  g 
.5  Ph 


a 

i|l 

ila 


SO 

3 G 

r-o 

G © 
M © 


0^3 

mO 

•— < o 
o S 
H 3 
So 


G .q 

^ o 
5 5 
^ ? 
I © 

|d& 

|M.iJ 

O03 
rt  Mr^ 
Cl  &U 

g.2  © 

aftft! 
•~0  o 
© O 

S 


00 


GG 
© © 


66 
© © 
GG 
O O 


Ph  Ph 


00  ^ 


'd 

CO  QJ 
<V  (U 

Ph^ 


© o 
CO  02 

© 4-. 

G 3 

o > 

3S 


0. 

30 

^3 

o> 

^■2 

3& 

3 G 

»H  « 
© 4- 

co  r3 

tn  © 
TOCO 

0 © 
62 

© H 

G ft 


ft  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished  269  Conflicting  guarantees 

2®8  1100  lbs.  withdraAvn  from  sale 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918  (continued) 


142 


<D 

^ W 

£ a 

, G u 


. O TO 

£ G c$ 


<D 

L. 

*p  s 

X 3 © 
O w 

5 “ 


ft 

I “ ® 

•c 


g-3 


c ft 


puno^ 


© bo  ' 
r cj 


l-S  .5 


© w < 

if* 

s„-& 

d 

- © © 
c © c « 

S-c  w o d 

o h n S 
© © -JS  , 

d ^ ■ 

© o « « « 


a X © 2 
- © o fl 

J hi 

P>  ® eS  A ej 
02 


o <0 


S rn 


8|©p 


w 3 -a  2 © 

g © © g d 

t<3  a;  .5  B 

W r-.  (fl 


to  bJD  55 

.©I 

W 3 ~ 

3 2 

O TO 

2 © 

_S  C 

© 

ft 

^Id 

© 

- . © 
>>  X ■** 

© O fi 

P C3 

3 ft  «s 

x ft  2 

S3  E 

SO 

N‘o 

B © — 

« W £ 

+r  Su- 
ggs 


C s3 

3 © +-> 

to  X 

^ bo 


5(-g 

g 6t- 
c © 

,.g^ 


© 

X 

3 & 

O "o 
® 3 
X 
d 

!«s 

S®  © a 

3 m bo 

N 

u“  ftg 

j-i  © 3 


tjgo 
x -o  ^ ! 
— ft' 
- o ft 

tgf^ 

X M « j 


* ® ■ 

+h  £ © 

g s 

© ©^ 


. &0.2 

) N 
1 £ 3 

tg^ 

’ ^*1 
co d 

r^«  g 
i M . -5 

!“Sg 

I X'  cS 
-Oft© 

ft^ 

. ft  +-> 


o ftQ 
© ft 


.d 

c © . 

L.  <X>  TO 

o w bx) 

0 .5 

. L C 


^ ^ <D  CD 

ra  w (i)  co  ;>  <d 

<D  &C  rj  a>  J Jh 

£ .5  | £ «g  g 


tG  O <G  ' 
X © W 


ovo  o 

© „ © 


d 05  d ^ 

© . © © . TH 

X X W to  w ^ ■ 

O o U — 10  1 

CtJ  fx  3 © 

0 ft  o © to 
133  £ « 53 

- leg®* 


© a 

d bo 


a -d 

oj  © 

42  © 


tH  t.  w b 
tc  © >,  0 
3 fe  O ^ 

A!c#s''=g 
CB-“  =fgl 

a 

. a) 

o <•  ••  •*-> 


<D  ~ 

t:  be 


il 


a)  c 

^ S-. 

o 


Cw  c. 

N ©^ 
" £ KO 

te  ■ 


© d © 3 
0 J3  3 


w 3 
>>  2 
© oj  1 
02 


Co)® 
k3oC 
0 to  fe; 
o . £ 

J X 

^-3  g £ 

^§3 

^ o 


© 

p-2  o 

o 


L.  w j. 

^ ft® 


p00^UB 

-aeno 


puno^ 


(M  CO  (M 


P00^UB 

-aeno 


•}U0O  a0d 

0an^sioj\[ 


© 

1 

1 

CD  1 

1 

© 

, 

© 

© 

© 

3 ! 

| 

j 

3 

> 

3 

3 

£ ! 

, 

d 

©• 

> 

’n 

> 

co 

3 

03 

> 

w 

03 

3 

S3 

> 

w 

10 

3 

> * 

w 

> 

03 

03 

> 

W 

6 

6 

0 

3 ! 

> 3 

H 0 

•N  CD 

0 

m 

d 

0 

d 

© 

PQ 

0 

OD 

d 

3 

S3 

> 

Jh 

PQ 

6 

3 

c3 

> 

pq 

r 

r 

_r 

O 

bo 

6g 

g 

r 

© 

6 

O 

d 

0 

O 

0 

O 

6 

0 

6 

0 

is 

a 

PL 

_3 

5 

3 

o-g 
© ^ 

Ph 

© 

6 

0 

© 

0 

d 

bo 

3 

O 

d 

3 

O 

m 

3 

O 

© 

=8 

«8 

a 

X 

) 

! 

(-C 

■d  3 

s 

<D  •* 

02  0 
, >>  2 

d 

3 

H 

«8 

co 

3 

S3 

EH 

© 

© 

02 

>> 

1 

© 

© 

02 

>> 

■o 

3 

S3 

T3 

3 

S3 

S 

02 

S 

02 

® 

c 

! 

1 

) 

3 © 0 3 

©pq  0 c 
n - at- 

I O)  ^ 

; d Q 

0 3 

© 

! O 

® 3 

© 

! « 

"3 

M 

© 

02 

02 

pSL 

^ e 

> K>  . 

d 2 

d ^ 

{>■ 

> 

CO 

S3 

CO 

A 

w 

W 

" P 

i 

53  3 cl£ 

3 0 ft1  ■- 

! .2^ 

5 c 

! w 

S3  .S 

O 

d 

O 

3 

W 

S3 

W 

c 

° 02  -A- 

02  K* 

1 Iph 

©Hi  _• 
PQ  Eh 

i 

O 

a 

uonoadsuj 


I«PUJO 


(3s 
s +* 

Wed 


1*1 

Ofo 

®S 

sM 
^ o 
®o 
X Ph 
Q 


si 


® s 
& 


i i j : ; s 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

! i ! ^ 1 5 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

i : ; : w : 5 

o a i ~ i 

. d 
d © 

1 1 1 
'g  i -d  : 

; £ § : ^ 

£!  ,q.te 

0 o 

1 I 

-a  -a 

02  a> 

QJ  CD 

Ph  Ph 

a d 

0>  <D 

w w 

o o 


>■£ 

■So 

O X! 

HJ.-S 

3 

S3  TJ 

II 

§Ph 

o o 

<D 


C tH 

'3 

w 


nH  T3  l— 1 ‘C 


OQ 

«B  c 


.2  bo 

S s 

°3^ 

jM.g 

<>a  O o’ 

°«  bo  02 

So  S 


So 


! 

I*  ®'rd 

i rl  C 

o 


o« 

«8 


,©  S3 

«1S 

Offl® 

a 


© 

© 

+3  3 
-IB  o 
^Ph 

,o,2 
a n 
o o 

S S 

03  03 

SS 


B® 
o x: 

11 


'C  « 
© 2 
go 

£ I 

3C  © 
ft  © 

’See 

Ph 


=8 

4-> 

<=8 

P 

P 

£ a 

X 

jS 

§ p 
o.  _ 

1 

S 

S 5 

O d 

d 

© 

© 

d 

© 

© 

O § 
bo 

Ph 

Ph 

3 

.3  © 

X! 

X 

3 rv. 

C3  — ■ S3  ■— - 
U © t*  © 
© JC  © 33 
02  02  02  02 

>»  M >>  S-i 

c3  _C3  © 

"a  t«  ’ft  w 
tn  !>,  E7  >, 

'SO'SO 

Ph  Ph 


So2 

© © ^ C3 
Cl  •=  .tc  © 

3O  ^02 
g 


•IE 

o 

pC  a> 
-M  O 

5!; 


So 
^ © 


© bo 

S bo 

5 w 


ogQ 

3 oO 

WO 


143 


ft  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished  270  Returned  to  distributor 

269  Conflicting  guarantees  271  Misbranded.  Relabeled  No.  3929 


144 


g 'ft  m 

ra  a) 

g a;  a 


rj  CQ 
£ CD 
U 

a » 


•8-S8 

gg2 

uft£ 


■ft  -p  3 

243  s 

u S 

a 


punoj; 


paaipre 

-anno 


putlog 


paa^ire 

-jBno 


<D  X g 

£ 2 O 
° ft  w 

C ft  a) 

§ a 

CQ  *55 


*§£ 

2 

g-ft 
o ° 

% So, 

•“  ft  a 
.a  * 

^ <V 

* S» 

45 

* <D  CQ 

£o^ 

§S« 

^ W 
. >> 
-M  BJ  o 
cd  *d  . 

© © wO  • 
f!  (US'- 
S.  CG  <N  ' 


g CQ 

G bo 

c.S 

<c  c 

cd  <d 
* £ 


H TO  (H 

esl 


P O 
,!•  o 


■S  611 

g cd 

« 

of  ^ S 

-ft  Cd5^ 

CD  o <*< 


.ft  ft  a x 

m m A o 

a *££, 

° m b”  a 

- 'ft  .£  rH  <j 

>.  <0  u o ^ 

® ® bo  ° H 

.g.  2-m*  2g 

■°  -ft  g Cd  ft<N 
aj  ° a)  a co 
■p  ® w ,cj  cd 
cd  £ cd  > n 
cd  d ^ ^ M 

■S^s-ftgg 

^ cd  ® ,° 

. CD  b <D 

p > . cd  >ft  ft 
o P c-  t.  o cd 
O O Tfl 


is6 

its 

. H (31 


c O ft 

p £ ft 
a ft-* 


g‘*s 

cd  oo 

(D  OO 

■g® 

otfS 
ft  o ^ 
X2  <-.  be 

a 

^ ft  cd 
>>  c*  o 


•ft  °P  g <o  c 5 

P o Hft  ft  .5 


a 5 co 


<M 

CO 

Sjja 

O CQ 

- (5 


.a 


l CD  J 

.ft  £ 


eft  co"  ft 


^ CD 


g<c  2 

2 § “ 
IT  w O 


flil 

.’“3 

£ | X | 

S I £ S> 

c a 

. fS  ft  (M 

■g  ft  a <3 

® w P 


ft  ^ 

a 2 


fe  tn 

^ -a 

. <D 


i 'ft 


o <Dft_:  o o 

.ft  " cd  m 
te  u ° 'ft 

g"  J*  2 2 * 2 « 

CD  g W g 2 O +J 

A ft  >>.ft£  cd  5 

,Q  O U +J  ^ rH 

l>  u 


^ . 
X 

- © 
c fe 

*a  u a 

Es* 

® 'ft  tn 

ft  5 'ft 

© ft  0) 

+-  O <0 


^a  o 

Soft 


•“ftp 

J-® 

g 'O 

Sif  8 

” a 

c1*  § 

d • « 

a g ® 


33«») 

ft  "E 
® go's 

^-1  S 

ft  'H  +3  a 

0)  C .JN 

^ 13  h^o 


c 

.2 

■M 

O 

<u 

CL 


vpiaa  aad 
aan^sio]^ 


c3  c3  c3  c3 

s'  a a a 


J>  Cl 

w8 

CQ  -M 

o>  a; 

a a 

(H  c3 

03^5 

PH 


a 

uoi^aadsuj 


IBiaipo 


145 


to 


tfl  u 

d 

X 


o £ F< 

© ^ be  . 
y 

rQ  3 <B  00 
y n C «> 

,*'  5^ 

O , 

£~  ©Q 
0*2. 
. -,  d 

d © 

£ d«?  2 
> O e^  d 
t>  W 


0)  Sh 

II 


X ^ 

O t- 
h C 0) 
§ tn  £ 

ft  o o 

<5  O 53 

c 

oo  S «; 

CO  M 
<X>  O - 

O g d 

W y y 

to  "9 
d ^ £ ■ 

s 2 go 

(h  E O 3 

laSg^; 
02 1> 


| s 

■§.§ 
3 '- 
ft  ~ 


3 +T  +J*i£'d 
O y y",  flj 

y -a  ~ 'n  © 

boS  33  eo  -g 

-gfl  d iH  C 

Q«^  ^ m o5 


fiS1 


O ft  fl  to  X 
— ©.  3 *->  a 

•=  be  r 


»® 
ft  — 
C3  -S 


3 2 *3 

y ^ 'd  ^ 


|"S 

I5’!*- 

a ® 3- 

.5 ,3  3 ^ 
3 to  bfl 


...  © t 

-d  .a  ^ 

X O | 3 - 

d ft-P  o 
ft  © 
u 3 ^ 

© -d 

+j  w © © 

d « 5 ,* 

(D  « 2 o 

£ u 


W 4?  »H 

J* 

>1“ 

o £ s 
oSA 


y £^ft 

a « 50 
“to  _, 

g _.  X y 
0'S  oe 

ho  y &-*> 

£ ftg 
■m  ' d © 

oft  -*H 
ft  to  m 

C S | y 
O o*  “ ® 

flSS,g 

y - y 5 
£-3  S 

■M  y . >» 

3 ft  y O 
© ft  t3  • _. 

aga«|1 

" ,o^ 

iJ  xg§ 
' 2|§ 


" “ © ® 
d P ft  X 

2 y 

bo  ” h p 


*^7 

®fl»  g 

Is! 

h 

. j d 

w x 3 


o ft 

ft£5 
A ti  y 

y ft 


d y 

° *°£ 

iUi 

° g’fl-c! 


(D^O^ 
3 F.  £ 
i£  ,3  ft  to 


be* 

+j  ^ © O 

d © fl  fl 

© E © 

^•ft  © | 

d S ““ 

©hU 

y ^ © 

o.o  © 
O CS  C^"S 

3 3 0 3 
^ OH  W 


V c v 

§ 2 ft  ii1 

i o 

g°g  s 

X. o JS 
+a  ft  o *2  -g 

S^Bs 

3 y [2 
■u  y tao  © *H 
3 o M 3 ^ 
30  © © 

© rt  O © 

82  ft  -3  g 3 


SI 

«o 

X 

. 'O 

r-M  ® 

3 -p  52 
y f-  • 
o be 


Is 

■BCS* 

<V  O <P  ■ 
M -M  4^  M 

o”®o 
etf  -i  n ctf 

s|^s 

.""•ft  . 
ea  o"-a 
y n3  © © 

g£“^ 


^2  s 
+jd,o 

o © 

C®1 
+J  — « 

3 7 ’Z 
■ft  © 3 

3-  © 

© «m 

ft  o ® 

d 3 © 
y 5 X 
os  5 ® 


ft  ft  & 
ft  ft  w 


3 © 
1 -2 


©l# 


'ip 

es 'd 

,•  O y 

<B«S 
3 d 
X ft 
^ y 
'+3 'ft 

£-c~ 

o bfi^ 

u S 

© 

+;  © <ft 
d ft  * 

— y 2 ©i 
^ 

© ^ g 7 
ft  -d  d * d 
-X  © 
P d^1^  s 

ee  *.  <M  O « 

u . 


© « £ 
y © 

K ft 
& 3 

^ 5 ft 

S s-ft 

c-°  © 

§ .p 

a ® 

i2W  5o 

d 

o — 

. © 

kT  .d  "ft 

5?  C ® 

•ft  be  . 
u w J? 
d © 

g“  ® 

o « d 
© . § © 
X C ft 
^ £ 2 1 

o Oft  ^ 
gd©.3 


o o 
Q p 


CO  (M  CO 


fl 


a 

3 

C3 

ft 

2 2 
ft  p 
<% 


ft  d 
2£ 


© 3 

p 

bo  3 

d & 

^ £ 
rO 
o 

.9  2 

gpq 
CD  © 
© © 
a-g 

O 3 


SO 

ft  3 
© as 
M M 

r-ft 
Ph  « 


'O  bo 

IS 

3 ft 

ca  w 

a i 

So 

•S« 


bo 
bo  a 
fl  53 
’43  fl 
3 3 

ft  a 
Ww 


>. 

Fh 

2 

o 

Fh 

3 O 
O 

+j  bo 
bo  fl 
3 53 
43  fl 
3 3 

SM 

M 


& 

li 


1 1 ! 

ii  1 1 iS 

! S-  8 Sc 

! @ S 8 1 

1 ft!  ® 

l 8 S 

> CP  JD~ 

i i ! 

Si  i e § § 
§£  1 s si 

fe  § 8 ? 

I S S ^ S 

8911 

8128 

1 

1 

1 

1 

J 

1 

1 

” 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

l 

; 

1 

1 

1 

I 

I 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

l 

l 

l 

i 

1 

1 

l 

1 

1 

1 

1 

J3 

r® 

R 

t 

1 

l 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4-3 

1 

1 

1 

‘C 

0 

X 

.© 

1 

1 

_<  -M 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

t£  1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Ind 
it  ... 

a 1 

Oftfr 

oa^ 

|o3 
« boo 

O 33 

©ft  I 

S°S 

3 W 

Of 


O.S 

3 2 


-x  ^ 


8 8’ 


>?a 


ft*  to  © 

SMW 
Ph  . ® 
M 2 3 
os  o oa 

bOft  ^ 

srs 


Ahw  Ph  g1  « 


-O 

«S 

•2fe 

ft  ^ 

- © 
« ^ 
3 _ 


ftO 

>.> 

ft^ 

Ph^4 


ft 

a 

o 
O 
"d  7 

„5ft 


.3  O Fh 

se« 

O T3  fl 
3 P .2 
fl 

3 P 

P 


flO 
O a 

ag 

« ® 
-.9 
dg 

fhO 

Is 


ft  Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished  272  Conflicting  guarantees 


146 


csU  3 

£.2  5 


« S ^ 

_ o w 
C C cj 

| *i  -d 
^ 3 Q) 

§:i 

“go 

rj  M 

2 o 


<U.S  fl 

d y y 
s +e  o 


'O  +J 

3 3 

6^ 


punoj 


paa^u-B 

-anno 


putlog 


paaiire 

-atmo 


« 3 
© ,0 


3 be 
.35  , 


vj  to 
beg 
- 3 


£5 


a ts 

be©  +*• 
g -3  0) 

£ I'S 

s'si6' 


3 be  “ 

s-§ 

he  _ . 


0)  ■£  r 

©’S  n 

o * •; 

W 4)  d 1 

111 

, w © C 

ej  y , 
.Kg'S 

y - 


3 -s  c 

3 « 3 
V o 


ill 


a 
_ ft 
3 3 


d y 
y to 
X 

© -3 
3 y 
! h y 


Sf  g »; 
£ 


^ 'C 
© be 


:£  8 
°£- 


ftd  3 

£ §2 
3 >2 
o ? "2 
© 3 


3 3 
■5  y 

J»35 

■y  3 £ 

y «5 

IS’* 

3 o £ 

y 3 3 


£*1d 

°dB 

»3 

y 4J 
3 
3-© 

£ & 

3 o-S 

33  3 y 
ftfte 

3 '2 

» 33  fl 

to  y 

3.2 

3 3 
o ft_ 

e”1 


3 ’B 


1 3)+J 
(.P-fl 
3 5 

33  to 
y ,-1  d 
y 

. . y 
y to  ■£ 
3 © S 
B3« 
13  to  U 


3 

y >,  to 

3 3 3 
3 3 0 
03  J 

32  o c 

b y 
3 a,* 


y §•■§ 

f«§ 

3 . A 

bed  fe 


•rt  y 
d 
d 


gyS 
p. g2  ~ 
®s 


15 

© 


y 43 

S £ 
•5  ,* 


(1  “ t-t 

£ £ 3 

3 3 33  3 

•3  te  a y 

- '32  ^ 

g £ S £ .5 
o .5  ho 
2^2 


3 - S « d 

y to  g U d 

ft-  +J  S Q. 
ft  3 3 3 5 

o to  3 be  3 

O M 


3 y 

<p  33 
bO  02 


ft  o 
o o 
O 


o 3 
3 y 

0 


y y © 

ft  3 35 

^£ 

3 qj  a 
to  y S 
to  « 
— 3 
3 dl 
o 

y - as 
3 “ 3 
(ii  b 

33  ca  « 


3*  2 -3  ^ «H 

rQ  35  3!  50  jj 

S g VO  3 

^ 3 68 

3 o 5 _T  fci 

” 0 .2  3 © 

3 to  y 2 
, to  3-d 
.-  y ti  s S 

•dggl.Ss 
e S'©  n 9 

•M  --H  ej  c w 

£ 8£aS 

^ S-t  0^  © pm 

s^H©w  2 
1 b'3 

35  2 h£ 


M^SS" 

y 5 3 - 0 +s 

^ ^3  ho  J 5 
- - 

§«  Sg^_l 


bJD  _ ^ ^ 
03  ■*-»  £ w ^ ZI 

S 3 .h  o (j  * 
he  y he  a-M  « 
O 


•^uaa  aad 
aanjsio^ 


a 

uoiioadsuj 


IO  <N 


s3 

J:  • ® 

$5  2 

CO 

CO 

© 

s e : 

$5  ® 

3 

1 

® 1 

IBPUJO 


y y 

£g 


O o 


°-3 

da 


£ o 
, 3 
. y 

WB 

« 

3 

30 


CO  .U. 

§0 

3^= 


- c 

1!  w 
H« 

S5  £ 
WH 
5!  oc 


o 


y 73x2 
35  3 2 

.S^y 

'y  Vh  0^ 

«5c 


§PS 


H SO 


o 


2 y 
ft  ft 
1-1  « 
«b“W 


!>  E 
3 o 

K2 


03  y 

s§ 

2H 


25 

oS 

ot 


» 2 

2 be  o 
0 faO 

O d^ 

32  3^ 

T3  co  o 

O'S  O 

O d}  ^ 

y .§ 

-m.2  o 

c O 
OS  3 « 

B > y 
§ £ 
O 


03  33 
« d! 

2 § 

0 3® 
y ,33 

«|| 

is* 

|«d 


.£ 

2 

s 

fl 

cd 

ft? 

© .2 

O 31 

05° 

3!  Eh 

2 be 
T3  O 

2W 
. w 

M 


147 


+9  V O V b 

Z it  S J!  S S C! 
- 05  ,a  £ £ £ t 
ng  £ rs  x X XX 
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ & & 

£ U H ^ ^ ^ ^ 

« 4>  ^ .£  pfi  -S  := 

.S  £ *5  "£  1£  "Su  "S 


0)  ® 
t g£ 
a * a 


£ £ £ £ 
o « e © 


® 'I  ® 

a S A 

.3  O .- 
+>  £ -« 


c c c c 

£ £ £ £ 
it  it  it  it 
U %.  ■-  U 


S3  — 3 3 5 5 S 

0)  p ii  ac  ® « ob 

vr  * SD 

© ^ 0 

£ Tt  33  es  os  r-  <n 

£ N £<  iH  iH  ei  so 


t-  b-  b-  t- 

fl  Cl  fl  Cl 


TABLE  IV. — Report  of  Inspection  of  Feeds  Collected,  January  1,  1917  to  January  1,  1918  (continued) 


148 


3 ? 


, ft  01 

! <D  • 


.2  2 
fr.  3 

<u  3 


<u  c 
" 3 

Ih 

(0 

3 


,«2 


. O OQ 
C CJ  Cj 

I 3 ^ 

■Ms 

cL,  2 


5 3 
c » 


ii?  £ 

■35  ® 
£ £ I 


g -a 


g - 
K g 3ft 

s w d) 
8 CO 

s?$3 

silt 

o co  bo  <u 
O > 


I? 

18 


0 8 


« 8 3 

3 CO 

0)  ft  rj 

ft  ® g 
0,0)0 
o CO  W 

?>  C ft 


3 ft  $ 
M <U  2 

® g 


o o ft 
3 o s 

CO  43 

- * S 


P> 

.xg  § 

03  3 ^ w 


| » O £ 

^ ft  Q)  0 
O'  02 

4->  . 3 


O -53 
_j  0 3 3 

g B-  ■ ft : 

8^83; 


. p 

x to 


.g  8 
2 & 


5§ 

tt 


™ ft 1 
co  C 


3 0 ' 
o 


ft 

| 5 ! 

2 Q)  3 d 

rO  £ O J 

3fi“6 

CJ  M rH 


d ODS 

Sf-Sg 

Oft  s S_ 

a3^ft® 


E -r  3 
O bJO  co  ,3 

U O 


SgS 

8 §*.2  5 

3 c ® ft 

.2  .3s'H 

ft  <v  p © C 
3 3 to  ft  e 
Ul 


■uE 

3 -3 
a)  3 
co  a> 
ft  ft 
■3  £ S 

53  .6 

43  to  3 

CO  ® 

0 8 ij 

g 3 
-a  ft 
. ® 

co  ft 'd 
3 3 o 

0*3 

a - 2 
ft  3 O 
O 3 Oh 
0 0 3 

O > 


£■§ 

8 


. ° 3 « 
? 

. . to  >> 

3 r-  3 


ft  W 
ft 

3 co 

Sfe 

ft 

■S3 

.ft 

O <u 
Pi  -3 


5 c 

3 o 

h ft 


■3  ft 


a 3 


(0 


+J  r|  S 

fit  o 
<0  P ft 
0 


bo  .*_ 

3 5 2 
E~ft  * o 
o ft  V ^ 
o 3 § 3 

•S»o» 
o g 


og®. 

3 H< 

B*i  . 

3 . 3 

.2  g cT5 

»'i«fi® 

ft  a)  .5  3 

3 3 ft  3 

o a 


2 3 

<0  ft 
p. 


■II 

3 O 
* co  6* 
o bo 
ft 

** 

|“g 

2 3 -3 

fj3  3 g 

o L o 
o > 


0.3  3 

3 «)0) 
2g« 

°ft2. 


O 

ft  +> 
3 3 


punoj[ 


paa^utj 

-JTrno 


putlog 


paa^uB 

-aeno 


*^uaa  aad 
aan^sio^\[ 


to  eo 


S 8 


1 

1 

. 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

j 

1 

! *4 

0 

6 

0 

l 

1 

d 

! C3 

II 

« w 
a 

>> 

p. 

ft 

3 

CO 

a 

a) 

O 

s 

Ch 

3 

ffl 

’S 

CQ 

O 

0.  g 

<8 

O 

31 

3 

«r 

^ 8 > 

? Ia3 

P. 

V2 

> 

l 

^ f-i  ft 
3 co 

<V 

a 

ca  a 

Ah  A- 

1 W 

Ah 

K>  3 


O so 
PhCG 


o ft 
ft  > 

t»  CO 

w « 

ft  O 
°55 
125 


a 

uopoadsuj 


IBPHJ0 


3 o 

<a  a 

8eh 

. o 

bo+J 

•MCC 


3 O 

g'ft 

.20 


>»  >. 
'S'S 

i i 

«8  O 

3“ 

3^ 
8 ® 
0 ft 

■S3 

O . 

°s 

bo  bo 
0 0 

-ww 

'i'S  0 

ft  bo 

^ O 

Jl3  '3 

a a 

0 0 

'3  3 

S oT ft 

ft*  £ 

*3  2-a 

ftll 

aO« 

3 tH 

+j  3 

« CO 

to 

3® 

D 

hJQ  o 

<5W  0.2 

HH 
JS  ^5 

£\  HH 

gS 

§« 

o 


§°£ 

55-3 

ft 

ft  o 

3 O 

O £: 


buo 

- .8 
W ’■£ 
. 3 

a £ 

ft  ^ 
£j'ft  o 

S'°g 

a’g" 

0*3  >» 

^ aj  ft 

|38 

o 


o 

i-i 

. Ph 

a ** 
5 bo 
JR 

§<« 


O^J  oc 

°s 

• Pa 

W r#,  <D 


a;  o 

a >> 


.2 
•3 

<U  OJ 

a .3 
® ft  .2 
s 5 3 

3 1-1  o 

•-5  uTH 


8®  ft 

S O 
o * 


3 a 
■a  « 

<3  Ah 
r >» 


ogtrj 

I o’ 


149 


u 

d d _ 
U 2 ® 
-dS  ® 

<u  d 

CD  2 

co  <D  r 

fifiS 


d ^ 

si 


cd  M) 

ft  P 
ftPl 
o >d 

« £ 

«-  i 


>i 


P w 


h « «• 

■'  £ 


.p 

« a 


® c 


c3  _ o £ 

»®  oc 

tSe  ^ 
p "3 

OH)® 

,ss 

P o 

OCQ 


£ »+) 
£ s ® 
<p  es  ® 
M)  d.  3 

fi!‘ 

o u t- 
o © ® 


'd  "O  •« 

0)  Q)  » p® 

<D  <D  03 


a os  a> 
« 3d 

58 

b£  v - 


. o 


o <u 
ft  “ 


&fl  C 'd 

- O g 

*H  cf  O ^ 

Ml  S „ P 


O P 


h ja  CC3  ■ 
c ft-P© 

3 «S  ftg 


to  P M £ 
O*  0 


P.'CJ  S 

®|o 

r&  rO 

CD  .*  <D 

£R*.B- 

S°^-3gS 

^>'NCOO^ 
®S5c!lH®OOp 

§ a 


5*2 

O ® © 
0 £ M 
Mi 

d g « 

Sr£  § 


ft  P 

« 0) 

^ 'O  0 ^ 

V O 

*2^  ® 

||  gg 

&,rt  d 
O ^ ,d  P 
W O « § 
3 . co 
« <D  ft 

2*’0* 

2 'S  to‘3 

2 ® Ml  d 

® * CP 

SfiSg 

§ 2 p, 

„ H -d  M 

>5  2 


CO  ^ 

• CD 
2 &<> 
£ 

CD  . 

P s 


cd  P TJ 
“do 
P CD  O 


Ss 

M 


CD  rj 

to  g 

* o 

d co 
<C  ft 


'd  u 
■d  d 

So 


W •*  CCS 

u -d  <d  ft'd 

d 4)  rj  <U  CD 

« u ST  ft  u 


p 

fi 

bB 

S OJ 

d m 
ft  w 

a ■§ 

° a 

0 d 

§ -a 

1 S 
® >> 
S-oti 
S53 

O O M 

a«^s 

23«fc 

«•-=«  § 
nW^'C 
3 U5 
W 


P 

.a  s 

0)  M 

P ft 

CD  0) 

i> 


o“» 

o co 
CO  . 

to  g 

r*  ^ 

.5  a 
p a 


S c 

o-  CD 

h mi 


Ml  5 


. p 
W i 
cc3  ft 

<D  ^rH 

^ 2 3 


^■g  S p 

O 2 3 CO 

c c .a  co 

-IP 

®g°3 
ft  § d 

«*>  aw 

Ml  . “ . 
g H S "d 
3 d-3  n 

l"fig 

K CD  , -rt 

d P d g 
cd  d cd  53 
^ Tr,^ 


O)  .X4 

o 

oi 

„ d 

M)^ 

O 

B r 
w o 
flO 

.2  CH 

a | 
is 


>> 
a 

03 
ft 

a ..h 

O as  fl 
Ot>  O 

co 

>» 

P ft 
dJ  +J-S 
o a P 
tn  3 O 

^ oPM 
111 
■3  £ 


o 

5 

P3 

.g'd 

Z,  CD 
pH  CD 

-Ph 
d a 
fe| 

O co 
P 


K 

H 

OH 
Ph  Pi 

§3 

il 

© 


Ph  - d 

o^a 

® « K 

O cs 

BO  T"J 

^gp 

w«‘g 

fl  d.2 
d ft^2 

s a a 

COP 
pO  o 

o o 

O 


H P4 


0 -P 

°'d  0 
■3  0^ 

C3  hH 

O r— ^ 

*12  _T  c-> 

4-»  . >> 

a;  ^ 

0 OlS 

pc--: 

S 0 p 

rS 

°-Sg 

ail 

P C 35 

a H g 

® 0 53 

£ 0 

0 K 

Q 

« 

>>  >H 

S 'P 

ft  ^ 

a O fg 
o p Ph 

°§>> 
>>  -+3 

gas 

d 

^ CD  >1 
. Cj  +0 

£cn 

02 


Eh  g 
- P 

>5  . CO 

p c o 
ft  o Ph 

O-o^ 


<D 


C w 
CD  . 
W 


<D  W 

ftS 

si 

. ft 

-H  <D 


si 

•d  “ 

CD  ^ rj 
<D 

W Tf 

•Sod 


0 

0 

00 

rH 

0 

0 

co 

©q 

05 

« 

05 

<mv 

00 

d 

05 

i>^ 

cd 

rH 

O 

10 

0 

, 

, 

, 

, 

, 

, 

, 

3 

CO 

S 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

co 

05 

co 

oq 

0 »-j 

0 

05 

rH 

GO 

10 

r—i 

co 

c4 

<N0 

<©q 

d 

d 

0 

O 

0 

, 

, 

, 

, 

, 

, 

, 

>0 

O 

j 

! 

! 

! 

I 

°i 

CO 

CO 

O 

°o 

<M 

06 

0 

05 

d 

d 

cd 

cd 

00 

g 

s 

eo 

i 

i 9 S 

1 1 

a 

s s 

s 

3? 

10 

s s?  s 

i 1 

s 

5o  8 

ft  +» 

a a 

o .2 
O o© 


a £3 


, d o> 


cc 


Ph  ft?  MC«5 

p D o© 

4->  pQ-P  ^ 

GC  JjcOO 
CD  0«5s 
Jp  dH 

Eh  2 Eh 

Fh 


hi 

re  £ 

0)  x 
rs  4) 


V 

P h « 
v ® ; 

.S~S 

ts  * 

® - 
^3  c a 

CD  5 O 

a£* 

JJ  «H 

S'g'l 
.as  I 
^ s g 

P CD  Z 
® *H  . 

® . g 
£ 3 2 
ft^  ft 

cfp 

SB  * 3 

9.0^^ 
N ^eo  -p 
Se^e 


■b  t?  -b 

« 4)  M 
® V 

h 

h « h 

4)  X O 

Pp3 


S 5 S 

O u o 
fc<  '*1  u 


p ®p 

CD  > D 

> O f 
o c o 

sis 


Sr 9. 3 

D « D 
x x 

W5  rH  CO 


£ Bn« 

1|  2 1 

M)JK 
® v « 
j-  h . 

® -C  ^ « 

■d  -sd- 

h 

.2  g S c a t 

ril  s 

8 

X > ® c©  Frt 

^ g § | > 5 
$ £ ® S g q 

p ® D-d  O 

i_  . h 4)  X 

• a !i  tB  o 
5 g p s s 
CD<U’2-fiPP—  ft 
bfl  MipS1  ftj3  JS  o 

t>c  ty  3 g a &.S  5 
«3  *S  ® §3,3  & 

^ +3  jOvO  ® ® .S  g 


i5o 


g © c 

t,  5 <- 

o g ® 

S s ,2 
a ** 

_ o w 
S fi  ® 


»5o 
a M 


£-s§ 

2p« 


T3  +> 
3 o3 
Ji'H 


puno^ 


poo^un 

-anno 


puno^ 


paa^uB 

-anno 


'^uao  aad 
aan^sioj^ 


a 

uorpodsuj 


Ibioijjo 


a c 
o o 


aj  © 

m 
3 P 


a s 
s a 


us  3 
00  0) 


02 

— * 

3 * 

o £ « 
£*■  g 

85  -g 

a g 
© £ 

•m  a 

ssC 

3.5  3 

a £ 

•a  c ® 

5 © a 

, sand, 
of  corn, 

rn  scree 

orn  sere 

corn,  w 

« m 

O u 

© a 

© © 
rS  « 

£ 2 
s ■*» 

-m 

a £ © 
.&p  © g 

as° 

d 

■S  g i 

m ^ m 

5 to'w 


g>  S 

•3s£ 

m be  n 
•S  tj  3 


a © 

O . T3  to  r^j 
ft  3 '5!  oj  2 


JMo 


°o  © oq 

oi  d 05 


s 

C/2 

rt 

i i i 

"C 

p 

io 

£ 

$ 

a 

s 111 

1 

l 

a 

P- 

\% 

a 

© 

o 

a 

p 

a 

i iii 

! iii 

a 1 

rC 

CD 

h 

© 

6 

a 

> iii- 

§ ! 

!<« 

O 

© 

o 

& 

a ! 

GO  ^ 

JB 

^8 

„ C/2  C/2  C/2 

r/,  t_|  S_(  L_| 

CD  02  a)  CD 

2 © 
a ft 

4- 

f o a 

2 

a 

a 

I a a a 

^ Ss 

o 

£ § 

£ 

rt 

W 

>) 

O 

fa 

H « « « 

^ «2  tS  «2 

S n" 

;z2 

w >>,c 

hs 

^ '3  3 3 

§ tn 

C3  O 

c 

’ M1  O 

d 

h sss 

HH 

• ^ 

1-5  PM 

K go 
Pm  g 
«a 


Ph 


a c 

^ 03 

®W 


S3SS8 


PM 

af  g 
a ° S 

»*«“§ 
.302 


o§>£ 

^•|'Sg 

H O)  ^ 

g g 


a 18 


aa^ 

S 1-1  x 

tS  fl  « 

SSmi 

ft*  fP 

s a s 0 

6s£ 

go -2 
° toa 

^ 2 T3  ^ 

o PM  ® 

O Ml  on 

°o°a 

5al 

03 

to<^ 

fid  ca 

©+^ 

°!« 

■©o^ 

3 a 

O C 

>»CL|  5 03 

t-t  ^ OT 

'3  Qpq 

a a 3 © 
H to  gg 
ifiWu 

© a a! 
|6§ 
3 « 

pq  $ 

Pm  $ 

SI  1 1 

a 1 

v.  ^ 
© © 

fa  fa 
<< 


£ . =8 

81  ts 


Sat 


s>>  a 
©a  £ 

ci  o>  ph 
w Jz; 


_ 

0 

QJ 

Dapq 

^ QJ 

o> 

Ph 

^ a to 

QJ  © ® 

03 

3 33 

afi 

C3 

3 

to~  03 

«o-g 

02  d 

0 

* 

03  cc 
* 

a o 
^ * 

SO 

»s*  * 

* Not  tagged  f f Not  tagged.  Labels  furnished 

* Not  registered 


INDEX 


Page 


Attention,  consumers,  agents,  dealers 26 

Cooperation  with  United  States  Department 

of  Agriculture 21 

Definitions  and  descriptions  of  feeding  stuffs  12 

Digestible  nutrients  in  feeding  stuffs 10 

Discussion  of  several  classes  of  feeding 

stuffs  21-25 

Estimated  sales  1917  compared  with  those 

of  1916  and  1915 17 

Explanation  of  terms  9 

Indiana  Feeding  Stuffs  control  law— 

Administration  7 

Objects  3 

Pounds  of  crude  fat  and  crude  protein  ob- 
tained for  $1.00 : 16 

Refunds  20 

Remarks  to  agents,  dealers,  distributors 4 

Remarks  to  consumers 5 


Page 


Remarks  to  manufacturers 3 

Results  of  enforcement 18 

Sales  of  feeding  stuffs 17 

Samples  examined  microscopically 21 

Shipments  removed  from  sale 19 

Special  notice 26 

Special  regulations  applying  to  dealers  in 

hominy  feed 14 

State  Chemist’s  label,  reproduction 6 

Tables— 

Explanation  of  25 

Table  I Average  digestion  coefficients 

of  feeding  stuffs 11 

II  Average  analyses  of  twenty- 

nine  classes  of  feeding  stuffs  17 

III  Estimated  tons  and  retail  value  18 

IV  Details  of  inspection  27 


CONTENTS  OF  TABLES 

Average 
analyses 
and  pounds 
of  crude  fat 
and  crude  pro- 
tein for  $1.00 

Estimated 
tons  and 
retail  value, 
dollars 

Details  of 
inspection 

Alfalfa  meals  _ 

17 

18 

76 

Animal  by-products  

17 

18 

77-86 

17 

18 

103 

Calf  meals 

17 

18 

126 

Cocoanut  by-products  _ 

17 

18 

86 

Condiment al  feeds— 

Condimental  poultry  feeds,  registered  - 

17 

18 

148 

Condimental  poultry  feeds,  not  registered. 

17 

18 

149 

Condimental  stock  foods,  registered 

17 

18 

146 

Condimental  stock  foods,  not  registered 

17 

18 

147 

Com  feed  meal  __ 

17 

18 

87 

Corn  germ  meal 

17 

18 

89 

Com  gluten  feed 

17 

18 

91 

Corn  gluten  meal 

17 

18 

92 

Cottonseed,  cold  pressed 

17 

18 

103 

Cottonseed  fe,ed 

17 

18 

94 

Cottonseed  meal 

17 

18 

95 

Distillers’  dried  grains 

17 

18 

103 

Dried  sugar  beet  pulp 

17 

18 

86 

Hominy  meal,  feed  or  chop 

17 

18 

92 

Linseed  meal 

17 

18 

105 

Malt  snrnnts 

18 

Miscellaneous 

17 

18 

150 

Oat  middlings 

18 

Poultry  and  scratch  feeds — 

Mash  _ ...  ... 

17 

18 

127 

Without  grit 

17 

18 

130 

With  grit  __  . ...  

17 

18 

139 

Proprietary  stock  and  molasses  feeds 

17 

18 

108 

Rice  feeds  _ ...  * 

18 

Screenings  oil  feed 

106 

Unscreened  flaxseed  oil  feed 

17 

18 

106 

Wheat  middlings,  palm  oil 

107 

Velvet  bean  feed 

17 

18 

94 

Yeast  grains 

17 

18 

105 

Mill  by-products — 

Buckwheat  hulls 

67 

Chop  feeds  miscellaneous 

17 

18 

69-76 

Corn  hran 

17 

18 

86 

Corn  and  oats  chop 

17 

18 

68 

Com,  oats  and  corn  feed  meal 

74 

Corn,  oats,  corn  feed  meal  and  com  bran  

70 

Low  grade  flour 

46 

Mixtures  miscellaneous  mill  by-products 

61-68 

Reddog  flour  . 

46 

Rye  bran  and  middlings  _ 

67 

Rye  middlings  ....  

67 

INDEX  (continued) 


CONTENTS  OF  TABLES 

Average 
analyses 
and  pounds 
of  crude  fat 
and  crude  pro- 
tein for  $1.00 

Estimated 
tons  and 
retail  value, 
dollars 

Details  of 
inspection 

Rye  middlings  and  screenings  _ 

, 67 

Wheat  bran  _ 

17 

18 

27 

Wheat  bran,  corn  bran ___  

17 

18 

58 

Wheat  bran,  com  bran,  wheat  screenings 

Wheat  bran,  middlings  

17 

18 

59 

17 

18 

53 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  com  bran 

17 

18 

61 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  corn  bran,  screenings 

17 

18 

62 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  screenings 

17 

18 

54 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  screenings,  cleanings. 

17 

18 

57 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  screenings,  rye ... 

17 

18 

57 

Wheat  bran,  middlings,  screenings,  salt 

17 

18 

57 

Wheat  bran,  rye  bran,  corn  bran,  screenings 

17 

18 

59 

Wheat  bran,  screenings  

17 

18 

32 

Wheat  middlings  or  shorts  (standard) 

17 

18 

37 

Wheat  middlings,  corn  feed  meal ...  __ 

17 

18 

66 

Wheat  middlings,  red  dog  flour 

17 

18 

45 

Wheat  middlings,  red  dog  flour,  screenings 

17 

18 

66 

Wheat  middlings,  rye  middlings  ...  _ 

17 

18 

66 

Wheat  middlings,  screenings  

17 

18 

46 

Wheat  middlings,  screenings,  salt  

17 

18 

66 

Wheat  white  middlings  

17 

18 

45 

PURDUE  UNIVERSITY  ' LfWfflv 

Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


Bulletin  No.  218 
August,  1918 


Fig.  1.  Feed  grain  in  deep  litter  to  insure  exercise  and  proper  digestion 


THE  VALUE  OF  SKIM-MILK  AND  MEAT  SCRAPS 
FOR  WHITE  PLYMOUTH  ROCKS 


Published  by  the  Station: 
LAFAYETTE,  INDIANA 
U.  S.  A. 


PURDUE  UNIVERSITY  AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 

BOARD  OP  CONTROL 
Joseph  D.  Oliver,  President,  South  Bend 

v q Chandler  Indianapolis  Warren  T:  McCray Kentland 

CHARLES  Downing ::::::: Greenfield  JAMES  W.  Noel Indianapolis 

town  A Hille nbrand  Batesville  Andrew  E.  Reynolds Crawfordsville 

C%*vs  M Hobbs . Bridgeport  William  V.  Stuabt  ...  LaFayette 

CYRUS  M.  HOB  w-i"throp  E Stone^  a>  m>;  Ph.  D President  of  the  University 


ADVISORY  COMMITTEE 
(Under  Legislative  Act  of  1909) 

T yy  Mnnnti  ....  D.  B.  JOHNSON,  MOOreSville 

John  G.  Brown, ^Mo^o  association  State  Dairy  Association 

TT  -o  tt,  otttt  unnp  . .... D.  P.  Maish,  Frankfort 

U.  R.  t ISHEL  POULTRY^ ' fXnCIERS7' ASSOCIATION  STATE  CORN  GROWERS*  ASSOCIATION 

F j heacock,  Salem Indiana  Horticultural  Society 


ADMINISTRATION 
Charles  G.  Woodbury,  M.  S„  Director 

Harry  J.  Reed Assistant  to  the  Director 

Nellie  Tracy Administrative  Assistant 

MARY  K.  Bloom .Bookkeeper 

agricultural  extension 
George  I.  Christie,  B.  S.  A.,  Superintendent 

Thomas  A.  Coleman Ass  t State  Leader 

Field  Studies  and  Demonstrations 

George  M.  Frier,  B.  S.  A AsL3<i£i 

Charge  of  Short  Courses  and  Exhibits 
Mabel  L.  HARLAN  .Ass’t  in  Agricultural  Extension 

Richard  S.  Thomas,  B.  S„ ----- - 

Ass’t  in  Soils  and  Crops  Extension 

ANIMAL  HUSBANDRY 
John  H.  Skinner,  B.  S.,  Chief 

Claude  M.  Vestal,  B.  S., ; 

Associate  in  Animal  Husbandry 

George  A.  Branaman,  B.  S„. ------ - 

Assistant  in  Animal  Husbandry 

Herbert  E.  McCartney,  B.  S.  A ------ : 

Ass’t  in  Animal  Husbandry  Extension 

BOTANY 

Herbert  S.  Jackson,  A.  B..  Chief 

George  N,  Hoffer,  M.  S Associate  in  Botany 

Luna  E Allison,  B.  S Assistant  in  Botany 

Edwin  B.  Mains,  Ph.  D Assistant  in  Botany 

DAIRY  HUSBANDRY 
Ralph  E.  Caldwell,  B.  S.,  Acting  Chief 

Howard  W.  Gregory,  B.  - --- ■ — -- 

Associate  in  Dairy  Manufactures 

George  Spitzer,  Ph.  G.,  B.  S - --- --- 

Associate  in  Dairy  Chemistry 

Harry  M.  Weeter,  M.  S ----- 

Associate  in  Dairy  Bacteriology 

Turner  H.  Broughton,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Creamery  Inspection 

William  F.  Epple,  Ph.  G -- -: .--- 

Assistant  in  Dairy  Chemistry 

Hubert  W.  Fleisher,  B.  S.  A ........ 

Assistant  in  Creamery  Inspection 

ENTOMOLOGY 
James  Troop,  M.  S.,  Chief 

FARM  MECHANICS 

William  Aitkenhead,  M.  E.,  M.  A., - 

Specialist  in  Farm  Mechanics 


HORTICULTURE 

Laurenz  Greene,  M.  S.  A.,  Chief 

Harry  A.  Noyes,  M.  S Associate  in 

Horticultural  Chemistry  and  Bacteriology 
Joseph  Oskamp,  B.  S..  Associate  in  Pomology 

Walter  A.  Huelson,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Horticulture 

NUTRITION 

Ralph  H.  Carr.  Ph.  D 

Associate  in  Nutrition  Chemistry 


POULTRY  HUSBANDRY 
Allen  G.  Philips,  B.  S.  A.,  Chief 

Dwight  C.  Kennard,  Ph.  C.,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Husbandry  j 

Lewis  H.  Schwartz,  B.  S.  A. 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Husbandry 

SOILS  AND  CROPS 
Alfred  T.  Wiancko,  B.  S.  A.,  Chief 

Martin  L.  Fisher,  M.  S -’- 

Assistant  Chief  in  Soils  and  Crops  | 

Samuel  D.  Conner,  M.  S 

Associate  Chemist  in  Soils  and  Crops  i 

Clinton  O.  Cromer,  B.  S Associate  in  Crops  | 

Sadocie  C.  Jones,  M.  S Associate  in  Soils  ! 

Ernest  N.  Fergus,  M.  Sc -:- 

Assistant  in  Soils  and  Crops  j 

STATE  CHEMIST 

Edward  G.  Proulx,  M.  S.L.Acting  State  Chemist  | 
Reuben  O.  Bitler,  B.  S.2.... Deputy  State  Chemist  j 
Margaret  Briggs,  B.  S.,... .Deputy  State  Chemist 

Paul  B.  Curtis,  B.  S.2 Deputy  State  Chemist 

Omar  W.  Ford,  A.  B.2 Deputy  State  Chemist  | 

Herman  J.  Nimitz,  B.  S.2..Deputy  State  Chemist 
J.  Howard  Roop,  B.  S.2.... Deputy  State  Chemist 

Samuel  F.  Thornton,  B.  S.2 

Deputy  State  Chemist 

Otis  S.  Roberts,  B.  S.2 

Chief  Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department  I 

Glen  G.  Carter,  B.  S.2 

Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

Benjamin  F.  Catherwood2 

Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department  I 

William  B.  Tiedt * 

Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

VETERINARY  SCIENCE 
Robert  A.  Craig,  D.  V.  M.,  Chief 
David  B.  Clark,  D.  M.  C. ..Associate  Veterinarian 

Lawrence  C.  Kigin,  D.  V.  M 

Associate  Veterinarian  j 

George  N.  Roberts,  D.  V.  M., 

Associate  Veterinarian 

Rex  A.  Whiting,  D.  V.  M 

Associate  in  Animal  Pathology  | 

Carl  H.  Clink,  B.  S Ass’t  in  Serum  Production  j 

Leo  P.  Doyle,  B.  S Ass’t  in  Animal  Pathology  ■ 

Leslie  R.  George,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Animal  Pathology 
Fred  L.  Walkey,  D.  V.  M Ass’t  Veterinarian 

DETAILED  BY  U.  S.  DEPARTMENT  OF 
AGRICULTURE 

Cereal  and  Forage  Crop  Insect  Investigations  ! 
John  J.  Davis,  B.  S..  Entomological 
Assistant  in  Charge 

John  M.  Aldrich,  Ph.  D.,  Entomological  Assistant 

Herman  J.  Hart,  B.  S Scientific  Assistant 

Wesley  O.  Hollister,  B.  S.,.. Scientific  Assistant 

Dean  A.  Ricker,  B.  S Scientific  Assistant 

Chester  F.  Turner,  B.  S Scientific  Assistant 

Seed  Testing 

Anna  M.  Lute,  M.  A Seed  Analyst 


1 In  charge  of  Fertilizer  and  Feeding  Stuff  Control 

2 Connected  with  Fertilizer  and  Feeding  Stuff  Control 


THE  VALUE  OF  SKIM-MILK  AND  MEAT  SCRAPS 
FOR  WHITE  PLYMOUTH  ROCKS 

A.  G.  Philips 


SUMMARY 

PART  I— PULLETS 

A Plymouth  Rock  pullet  is  an  efficient  transformer  of  raw  mate- 
rial into  a finished  product.  • 

The  consumption  of  feed  of  the  meat  scraps  pen  was  97.63  pounds 
of  feed  per  fowl  at  a cost  of  $1.69 ; the  no-meat-food  pen  was  83.24  pounds 
at  a cost  of  $1.37  and  of  the  skim-milk  pen  201.82  pounds  at  a cost  of 
$1.79.  Of  the  feed  consumed  in  the  latter  pen,  115.74  pounds  was  milk. 

All  birds  tended  to  consume  a similar  amount  of  grains  and  mash 
regardless  of  whether  they  were  good  or  poor  layers. 

It  was  the  addition  of  skim-milk  or  meat  scraps  to  the  ration  that 
increased  the  efficiency  of  the  grain. 

The  cost  of  feeding-  a Plymouth  Rock  pullet  on  a good  ration 
averaged  about  $1.75  for  the  year  1916  but  during  1917,  this  cost  in- 
creased to  nearly  $2.50. 

It  cost  an  average  of  $0,155  to  produce  one  dozen  eggs  in  the 
skim-milk  pen,  $0,152  in  the  meat  scraps  pen  and  $0,275  in  the  check  pen. 

It  cost  less  to  feed  a pullet  when  no  skim-milk  or  meat  scraps 
was  fed,  but  it  cost  more  to  produce  a dozen  eggs. 

The  amount  of  dry  matter  required  to  produce  one  pound  of 
eggs  in  the  skim-milk  pen  was  4.9  pounds ; in  the  meat  scraps  pen  was 
5.14  pounds,  and  in  the  no-meat-food  pen  was  9.57  pounds. 

The  egg  production  averaged  140.2  eggs  per  pullet  for  the  skim- 
milk  pen,  135.9  eggs  Per  pullet  for  the  meat  scraps  pen,  and  61.2  eggs 
per  pullet  for  the  check  pen. 

All  birds  tended  to  lay  the  most  eggs  in  or  about  the  month  of 
April  whether  well  or  poorly  fed ; whether  good  or  poor  layers. 

The  profit  over  feed  in  the  skim-milk  pen  was  $1.59;  in  the  meat 
scraps  pen,  $1.62;  and  in  the  no-meat-food  pen,  $0.05. 

The  feeding  value  of  skim-milk  for  Plymouth  Rock  pullets  was 
$1.60  per  hundred  pounds  and  of  meat  scraps  was  $20.03  per  hundred 
pounds. 

The  meat  scraps  pen  produced  better  fertility  but  not  as  good 
hatching  power  of  eggs  as  the  skim-milk  pen. 

Birds  ' receiving  neither  skim-milk  nor  meat  scraps  produced 
eggs  of  the  best  fertility. 

A Plymouth  Rock  pullet  produces  about  27  pounds  of  manure 
in  a year  at  night. 

The  method  of  feeding  had  no  influence  on  the  health  or  mor- 
tality of  the  flock. 


4 


PART  II— HENS 

Under  normal  conditions,  hens  consume  about  as  much  food  as 
pullets. 

Hens  that  were  starved  for  animal  protein  as  pullets,  increased 
their  consumption  of  everything  as  hens,  when  fed  milk  in  abundance. 

It  cost  but  slightly  less  to  feed  a hen  than  a pullet. 

When  fowls  had  sufficient  animal  protein  all  their  lives  they 
normally  laid  less  eggs  as  hens  than  as  pullets. 

Fowls  that  did  not  receive  sufficient  animal  protein  as  pullets  laid 
poorly,  but  when  given  skim-milk  as  hens  they  laid  as  many,  if  not  more, 
eggs  than  pullets  normally  did. 

A fowl’s  egg  capacity  cannot  be  judged  by  the  number  of 
eggs  she  laid  unless  she  received  a normal  ration. 

The  no-meat-food  pullets  molted  early  and  were  in  full  new 
feathers  by  October.  When  skim-milk  was  added  to  their  ration  in 
November,  they  responded  quickly  by  laying  more  winter  eggs  as  hens 
than  any  fowls  did  as  pullets. 

Early  molting  indicates  poor  laying,  but  it  may  not  indicate  poor 
laying  capacity. 

Hens  not  fed  milk  as  pullets  produced  more  income  and  profit  over 
feed  as  hens,  than  did  milk-fed  pullets. 

Hens  seemed  to  produce  better  fertility  than  pullets,  but  showed 
little  improvement  in  hatching  power  of  eggs. 

PART  I — PULLETS 

INTRODUCTION 

Feeding  experiments  with  poultry  at  this  institution  began  in  1910 
and  the  first  four  years’  work  was  published  in  Bulletin  No.  182,  Novem- 
ber, 1915.  Work  of  a similar  nature  has  been  continued  and  this  pub- 
lication gives  the  results  of  some  of  the  experiments. 

The  object  of  this  experiment  was  to  obtain  the  feeding  values 
of  commercial  meat  scraps  and  sour  skim-milk  with  White  Plymouth 
Rock  pullets.  Similar  work  has  been  carried  on  with  White  Leghorns 
and  it  seemed  necessary  to  know  if  like  results  would  be  found  with  a 
heavier  breed. 

TIME 

The  different  experiments  were  conducted  between  the  following 
dates : 

Experiment  No.  1,  December  1,  1914  to  November  30,  1915 

Experiment  No.  2,  November  3,  1915  to  November  2,  1916 

Experiment  No.  3,  November  3,  1916  to  November  2,  1917 

The  work  was  repeated  for  three  years  in  order  to  make  the  results 
more  indicative  and  conclusive. 

HOUSING  AND  YARDING 

The  pens  were  each  10  feet  by  12  feet,  built  in  pairs,  with  concrete 
floors,  muslin  and  glass  fronts,  Purdue  trap  nests  and  were  modern  in 
every  way. 

Each  pen  had  a yard  130  feets  by  150  feet  in  area  planted  to  young 
fruit  trees.  An  eight  feet  strip  of  sod  was  maintained  around  each  lot; 


5 


four  rows  of  corn  were  grown  between  the  trees  in  the  summer  and  a rye 
cover  crop  planted  over  the  entire  area  in  the  fall.  This  made  what  was 
thought  to  be  as  near  ideal  farm  conditions  for  poultry  as  it  was  possible 
to  obtain  on  a new  experimental  farm.  The  lots  were  naturally  devoid  of 
trees,  and  the  soil  was  made  up  of  Sioux  sandy  loam.  This  was  first 
class  for  poultry,  but  poor  land  on  which  to  raise  crops.  The  houses  faced 
the  south  and  the  land  gently  sloped  to  the  north. 


Fig.  2.  A flock  of  pullets  in  the  experiment  and  the  type  of  open-front  house  used 


STOCK 

The  stock  in  Experiment  No.  i was  White  Plymouth  Rock  pullets 
purchased  from  a farm  in  Indiana  and  in  Experiments  Nos.  2 and  3 was 
of  the  same  variety  hatched  on  the  Purdue  farm.  There  were  30  pullets 
in  each  flock  and  were  as  nearly  alike  in  size,  vigor  and  development 
as  was  possible  to  obtain  them.  Experiment  No.  1 was  not  started  until 
December  1,  because  the  pullets  were  hatched  a little  late,  and  were  not 
ready  to  lay  in  November.  In  the  other  two  experiments,  the  chicks  were 
artificially  hatched  and  brooded  in  March,  reared  on  good  free  range 
and  were  matured  by  November  1.  In  Experiment  No.  1,  cockerels  were 
used  in  each  pen  and  in  Experiments  Nos.  2 and  3,  two  cock  birds  were 
used.  These  males  were  changed  from  pen  to  pen  every  few  days, 
so  as  to  eliminate  any  influence  on  fertility  or  “hatchability”  through  the 
medium  of  the  ration  or  any  individual  male. 

RATIONS  AND  FEEDS 

The  rations  used  were  practically  the  same  as  those  used  in  the  pre- 
ceding experiments  with  the  Leghorns  and  seemed  to  be  easily  ob- 
tained throughout  Indiana.  No  ration  will  ever  be  worked  out  that  is 


6 


perfect  and  it  was  the  plan  of  the  Purdue  Poultry  Department  to  use  such 
feeds  as  were  grown  in  Indiana  and  mixed  in  the  most  practical  way.  The 
rations  were  as  follows : 


Skim-milk  Pens 

Meat  Scraps  Pen 

Check  Pens 

Grain 

Grain 

Grain 

10  pounds  corn 

10  pounds  corn 

10  pounds  corn 

10  pounds  wheat 

10  pounds  wheat 

10  pounds  wheat 

5 pounds  oats 

5 pounds  oats 

5 pounds  oats 

Mash 

Mash 

Mash 

5 pounds  bran 

5 pounds  bran 

5 pounds  bran 

5 pounds  shorts 

5 pounds  shorts 

5 pounds  shorts 

and  3.5  pounds  meat  scraps 

50  pounds  skim-milk 


In  making  up  the  rations,  the  plan  was  to  use  the  meat  scraps  ration 
as  a basis  and  supply  as  much  protein  in  the  skim-milk  as  in  the  meat 
scraps  ration.  The  meat  scraps  were  obtained  from  a commercial  packing 
house  in  large  enough  quantities  to  last  for  three  years  so  that  the  same 
could  be  used  throughout  all  experiments.  The  skim-milk  was  purchased 
from  the  Purdue  Dairy  Department  weekly  and  was  considered  fairly 
uniform  in  composition.  It  was  estimated  from  analyses  made,  that  50 
pounds  of  skim-milk  contained  the  same  amount  of  protein  as  3.5  pounds 
of  the  meat  scraps  used.  Wherever  possible,  the  grains  were  bought  in 
large  lots  from  nearby  farms  and  the  other  feeds  were  obtained  from 
local  elevators. 

During  the  winter,  the  corn  was  increased  to  15  pounds,  the  wheat 
reduced  to  five  pounds  and  in  the  fall,  one  pound  of  oil  meal  was  added. 
Grit,  oyster  shell  and  dry  ground  bone  were  always  available,  as  was  also 
the  water,  except  in  the  skim-milk  pen.  When  the  birds  were  not  on 
range,  mangel-wurzels  were  used  as  green  feed.  The  bran  and 
shorts  were  fed  together  as  a dry  mash  and  the  grains  were  mixed  and 
fed  together.  The  skim-milk  was  fed  in  an  open  pan  and  the  meat  scraps 
mixed  with  the  mash. 

PRICES  OF  FEEDS 

The  prices  of  the  feeds  as  charged  were  the  same  as  those  paid  for 
the  feeds.  They  varied  from  month  to  month,  although  the  feeds  bought 
in  quantity  remained  the  same -for  several  months.  The  following  state- 
ment shows  prices  for  the  feeds  during  the  three  experiments.  Every 
effort  was  made  to  buy  feed  as  economically  as  possible. 


Minimum  and  Maximum  Prices  of  Feeds  per  One  Hundred  Pounds 


Feed 

Experiment  No.  1 

Experiment  No.  2 

Experiment  No.  3 

Corn 

$1.25-$1.44 

$1.25-$1.71 

$1.71— $3.75 

Wheat  

1.25-  2.16 

1.60-  2.10 

2.10-  3.55 

Oats  _ 

0.94-  1.66 

0.94-  1.37 

1.37-  1.50 

Bran 

1.50 

1.25-  1.50 

1.50-  2.35 

Shorts 

1.60-  1.70 

1.35-  1.70 

1.70-  2.85 

Oil  meal 

1.80 

1.80-1.95 

1.95-  2.85 

Skim-milk 

0.30 

0.30 

0.30-  0.50 

Meat  scraps 

2.60 

2.00 

2.60 

Grit  — 

0.53 

0.54-  0.59 

0.59-  0.66 

Shell  

0.53 

0.54-  0.59 

0.59-  0.66 

Bone  - 

2.25-  3.50 

2.25 

2.25-  2.35 

METHODS  OF  FEEDING  AND  CARE 

The  mixed  grains  were  placed  in  a bucket  in  each  pen  and  the  dry 
mash  put  into  a hopper.  The  feeding  was  so  managed  that  the  grain 
and  dry  mash  were  both  consumed  in  the  same  length  of  time,  thus  insur- 
ing an  even  balancing  of  the  ration.  There  was  little  trouble  in  keeping 
the  balance,  although  care  had  to  be  given  to  insure  the  same.  The  grain 


Fig.  3.  Dry  mash  and  grit  should  be  fed  in  hoppers  upon  platforms  above  the  floor  in 
order  to  economically  use  the  floor  space 


fed  in  the  early  morning  was  scattered  in  a deep  straw  litter,  and  in  the 
evening  the  birds  were  given  all  they  would  clean  up.  This  meant  about 
one-third  of  the  grain  in  the  morning  and  two-thirds  in  the  evening,  thus 
increasing  the  appetite  for  the  mash  throughout  the  day.  The  dry  mash 
and  skim-milk  were  always  accessible  and  green  feed  was  given  when  the 
birds  could  not  obtain  it  in  the  yards.  Free  range  over  the  large  lots 


8 


was  allowed  except  for  a few  cold  weeks  in  winter  and  the  birds  were 
always  contented.  The  curtains  over  the  open  fronts  were  closed  at 
night  in  cold  weather  and  used  as  outside  awnings  in  the  summer.  The 
same  man  took  care  of  all  pens  and  every  care  was  given  to  prevent  lice, 
mites,  etc.,  and  to  insure  sanitation. 

WEIGHTS  AND  RECORDS 

A record  was  made  of  the  feed  when  it  was  weighed  into  vessels  and 
placed  in  the  pens.  At  the  end  of  each  seven-day  period,  that  which  was 
not  consumed  was  weighed  back,  thus  permitting  feed  consumption  to  be 
recorded  on  the  weekly  basis.  Trap  nest  records  were  kept  of  all  the  eggs 
for  each  year  and  were  recorded  in  both  weekly  and  monthly  periods. 
The  trap  nests  were  examined  three  to  five  times  daily,  depending  on  the 
season  and  heaviness  of  egg  production.  At  the  end  of  each  weekly 
period,  the  droppings  that  had  collected  on  the  dropping  boards,  were 
weighed.  The  birds  were  checked  up  at  short  intervals  and  weighed  at 
the  close  of  each  month.  Fertility  and  “hatchability”  figures  were  kept  of 
all  eggs  set  during  the  hatching  season. 


Table:  I. — Average  Consumption  of  All  Feeds,  per  Bird,  in  Pounds 


Skim-milk  pen 

Meat  scraps  pen 

Check  pen 

Teed 

Experi- 

Experi- 

Experi- 

Experi- 

EkperE 

Experi- 

Experi- 

Experi- 

Experi- 

ment 

ment 

ment 

ment 

ment 

ment 

ment 

ment 

ment 

No.  1 

No.  2 

No.  3 

No.  1 

No.  2 

No.  9 

No.  1 

No.  2 

No.  3 

Corn  

26.96 

32.31 

34.13 

27.51 

33.41 

37.58 

26.77 

30.51 

33.50 

Wheat 

15.19 

15.17 

14.86 

15.26 

16.35 

16.13 

15.60 

14.25 

14.66 

Oats  

10.54 

11.87 

12.24 

10.69 

12.44 

13.43 

10.59 

11.19 

12.04 

Bran  

10.51 

11.83 

12.25 

10.67 

12.46 

13.43 

10.55 

11.19 

12.03 

Shorts  

10.51 

11.83 

12.25 

10.67 

12.46 

13.43 

10.55 

11.19 

12.03 

Oil  meal 

0.42 

0.42 

0.49 

0.45 

0.48 

0.50 

0.48 

0.36 

0.48 

Total  

74.13 

83.43 

86.22 

75.25 

87.60 

94.5 

74.54 

78.69 

84,74 

Skim-milk 

105.21 

119.09 

122.93 

Meat  scraps 

7.47 

8.72 

9.40 

Grit  

1.26 

0.8 

1.78 

0.87 

0.52 

0.61 

1.22 

1.08 

1.43 

Oyster  shell 

2.45 

2.39 

2.17 

2.28 

2.12 

1.89 

1.60 

1.46 

1.51 

Ground  bone  

1.08 

0.8 

1.78 

0.68 

0.52 

0.61 

1.04 

1.08 

1.43 

Grand  total  _ 

184.13 

206.51 

214.88 

86,55 

99.48 

107.01 

78.4 

82.31 

89.11 

Table  I is  used  largely  to  illustrate  the  variation  in  consumption 
within  the  same  breed  from  year  to  year.  The  relative  consumption  of 
one  pen  with  another  within  the  same  experiment  was  rather  regular,  the 
meat  scraps  pen  always  consuming  the  most  of  the  chief  feeds  and  the 
check  pen  always  using  the  least.  There  was  no  definite  relation  between 
the  amount  of  food  consumed  and  the  egg  production.  In  practically 
every  year,  the  check  pen  consumed  as  much  grain  and  mash  as  the  skim- 
milk  pen. 


9 


Table  la. — Average  Consumption  of  All  Feeds,  per  Bird,  in  Pounds 
Average  of  Three  Years  of  Each  Experiment 


Feed 

Skim-milk  pen 

Meat  scraps  pen 

Check  pen 

Corn  _ - 

31.13 

32.83 

30.26 

Wheat  _ _ _ 

15.07 

15.91 

14.83 

Oats  — _ 

11.55 

12.18 

11.27 

Bran 

11.53 

12.18 

11.25 

Shorts  _ _ __ 

11.53 

12.18 

11.25 

Oil  meal  __ 

0.44 

0.47 

0.44 

Total ___  __ 

81.25 

85.75 

79.30 

Skim-milk  _ . 

115.74 

Meat  scraps 

8.53 

Grit  _ 

1.28 

0.66 

1.24 

Oyster  shell  _ _ 

2.33 

2.09 

1.52 

Ground  bone 

1.22 

0.60 

1.18 

Grand  total  _ 

201.82 

97.63 

83.24 

The  average  of  the  three  years’  feeding  with  each  pen  is  shown  in 
Table  la.  It  is  easier  to  compare  pens  when  the  averages  are  examined. 
There  was  a remarkable  similarity  in  the  amounts  of  grain  and  mash  feed 
eaten  in  all  three  pens,  which  is  of  particular  interest  when  the  egg  produc- 
tion is  noted  in  Table  IV.  Plymouth  Rocks  will  use  about  ioo  pounds 
of  feed  in  a year,  where  feed  lots  and  manure  piles  are  not  available.  A 
Plymouth  Rock  will  consume  over  ioo  pounds  of  skim-milk  to  take  the 
place  of  8.5  pounds  of  meat  scraps.  Although  grit,  shell  and  ground  bone 
were  always  available,  the  actual  amount  eaten  in  one  year  was  very  small. 
No  reason  is  known  why  there  should  have  been  so  much  variance  be- 
tween the  meat  scraps  pen  and  the  other  pens. 


Table  II. — Cost  of  Feed  per  Bird,  per  Year,  and  Cost  of  Producing 

One  Dozen  Eggs 


Experiment  No. 

Skim-milk  pen 

Meat  scraps  pen 

Check  pen 

Cost  feed 

Cost 

one  dozen 
eggs 

Cost  feed 

Cost 

one  dozen 
eggs 

Cost  feed 

Cost 

one  dozen 
eggs 

1 

$1.41 

$0,123 

$1.34 

$0.14 

$1.14 

$0,261 

2 

1.52 

0.138 

1.46 

0.131 

1.12 

0.227 

3 

2.46 

0.206 

2.29 

0.186 

1.86 

0.337 

Average 

$1.79 

$0,155 

$1.69 

$0,152 

$1.37 

$0,275 

Table  II  shows  each  year’s  costs  and  the  average  of  the  three  years. 
Feed  costs  steadily  increased  from  one  year  to  the  next  but  they  were 
rather  consistent  in  each  pen.  In  each  experiment,  the  skim-milk  pen  cost 
slightly  more  than  the  meat  scraps  pen  and  a great  deal  more  than  the 


10 


check  pen.  Feed  prices  have  risen  a great  deal  since  these  experiments 
were  conducted  but  the  comparison  of  costs  within  the  same  year  are 
indicative.  The  meat  scraps  pen  was  cheaper  to  feed  than  the  skim-milk 
pen  and  but  little  more  expensive  than  the  check  pen.  It  cost  $0,155. 
$0,152  and  $0,275  to  produce  a dozen  eggs  in  the  skim-milk,  meat  scraps 
and  check  pens  respectively.  Few  people  in  Indiana  sold  eggs  during  the 
three  years  of  the  experiment  at  an  average  above  $0,275  Per  dozen  and 
if  they  fed  no-meat-food  and  the  egg  production  was  low,  there  was  little 
chance  for  profit.  A high  total  feed  cost  may  reduce  the  cost  per  dozen 
eggs  if  the  egg  production  is  high,  and  in  the  case  of  these  experiments 
it  was  a good  investment  to  buy  skim-milk  and  meat  scraps.  In  com- 
paring the  meat  scraps  and  no-meat-food  pens,  it  is  found  that  an  increase 
of  $0.32  worth  of  feed  per  hen  reduced  the  cost  per  dozen  eggs  from 
$0,275  to  $0,152. 


Table  III. — Average  Number  Pounds  of  Feed  to  Produce  One  Pound 

of  Eggs 


Experiment  No. 

Skim-milk  pen 

Meat  scraps  pen 

Check  pen 

1 

10.91 

5.99 

11.8 

2 

12.31 

5.76 

10.6 

3 

11.69 

5.64 

10.19 

Average 

11.63 

5.79 

10.86 

Table  Ilia. — Number  Pounds  Dry  Matter1  Required  to  Produce  One 

Pound  of  Eggs 


Experiment  No. 

Skim-milk  pen 

Meat  scraps  pen 

Check  pen 

1 

4.54 

5.19 

10.18 

2 

5.22 

5.17 

9.45 

3 

4.95 

5.08 

9.09 

Average 

4.9 

5.14 

9.57 

1 Shell,  grit  and  bone  not  included 


The  hen  is  an  economical  transformer  of  raw  material  into  a finished 
product  and  in  Table  III  this  is  shown.  The  consumption  did  not  vary 
much  from  year  to  year  but  stayed  closely  to  the  average.  Due  to  the  large 
amount  of  water  in  milk,  it  was  hardly  fair  to  compare  one  ration  with 
another  without  reducing  it  to  a dry  basis  and  in  Table  Ilia,  the 
amount  of  dry  matter  to  produce  one  pound  of  eggs  indicates  similar 
efficiency  between  the  skim-milk  and  meat  scraps  pens.  So  far  as  effi- 
ciency of  production  is  concerned,  there  is  no  practical  difference  between 
skim-milk  and  meat  scraps,  providing  the  same  amount  of  protein  is  con- 
sidered. 


II 


Table;  IV. — Average  Number  of  Eggs  per  Pullet,  per  Pen,  per  Year 


Experiment  No. 

Skim-milk  pen 

Meat  scraps  pen 

Check  pen 

1 

138.7 

119.2 

54.3 

2 

135.9 

137.8 

61.4 

3 

146.2 

150.7 

67.9 

Average 

140.2 

135.9 

61.2 

Table  IV  gives  the  figures  that  are  most  important  in  the  experi- 
ment, the  egg  production  per  pullet.  There  was  a slight  variation  from 
year  to  year  making  three  trials  necessary  before  a fair  average  could  be 
shown.  The  skim-milk  pen  varied  the  least  and  the  check  pen  varied  but 
little  more.  The  meat  scraps  pen  produced  19.5  eggs  less  than  the  skim- 
milk  pen  in  Experiment  No.  1 and  1.8  and  4.5  eggs  more  in  Experiments 
Nos.  2 and  3,  the  variation  from  Experiment  No.  1 to  No  3 being  31.5 
eggs.  Such  variation  might  be  expected,  due  to  yearly  climatic  differences 
and  individuality  of  the  hens.  The  average  of  the  three  years  is  indicative 
and  places  the  two  protein-fed  pens  as  very  similar  in  egg  producing 
power  and  far  more  efficient  than  the  non-protein- fed  pen.  On  the  basis 
of  egg  production,  the  amount  of  skim-milk  and  meat  scraps  fed  caused 
an  increase  in  egg  production  of  79.0  and  74.7  eggs. 


Table;  V. — Average  Per  cent.  Egg  Production  per  Month,  per  Pullet — 

Three  Years 


Month 

Skim-milk  pen 

Meat  scraps  pen 

Check  pen 

Ex- 

peri- 

ment 

No.l1 

Ex- 

peri- 

ment 

No.22 

Ex- 

peri- 

ment 

No.32 

Aver- 

age3 

Ex- 

peri- 

ment 

No.l1 

Ex- 

peri- 

ment 

No.22 

Ex- 

peri- 

ment 

No.32 

Aver- 

age3 

Ex- 

peri- 

ment 

No.l1 

Ex- 

peri- 

ment 

No.22 

Ex- 

peri- 

ment 

No.32 

Aver- 

age3 

November 

10.0 

8.8 

9.4 

19.0 

13.0 

14.0 

10.0 

2.0 

6.0 

December 

0.9 

8.0 

20.0 

9.6 

13.0 

29.0 

14.0 

6.0 

10.0 

5.3 

January  

2.6 

14.5 

29.7 

15.6 

1.7 

16.9 

27.8 

15.4 

8.7 

31.5 

13.4 

February  

18.0 

25.6 

29.0 

24.2 

13.0 

31.0 

38.0 

27.3 

13.0 

22  0 

20.7 

18.5 

March  

61.0 

58.0 

57.0 

58.6 

40.0 

61.0 

58.9 

53.3 

23.0 

29.0 

49.0 

33.6 

April  

70.0 

68.9 

68.0 

68.9 

69.0 

65.0 

57.8 

63.9 

42.0 

38.9 

44.8 

41.9 

May 

60.0 

62.0 

63.0 

61.6 

61.0 

62.0 

59.0 

60.6 

21.0 

41.0 

12.7 

24,9 

June  

58.0 

62.6 

56.7 

59.1 

60.0 

57.0 

56.0 

57.6 

30.0 

29.0 

17.0 

25.3 

July  

50.0 

40.0 

51.9 

47.3 

52.0 

36.0 

51.0 

46.3 

10.0 

4.6 

15.5 

10.0 

August  

45.0 

; 41.0 

37.0 

41.0 

43.0 

31.0 

38.0 

37.3 

11.0 

0.1 

8.5 

6.5 

September 

38.0 

37.0 

34.0 

36.3 

23.0 

34.0 

45.0 

34.0 

6.8 

3.5 

4.0 

4.7 

October  _ _ 

39.0 

20.0 

24.0 

27.6 

25.0 

22.9 

22.8 

23.5 

8.4 

1.3 

7.0 

5.5 

November 

17.0 

36.0 

I 

8.0 

20.13 

6.0 

10.0 

15.0 

10.3 

7.7 

7.0 

2.8 

1 Experiment  No.  1 began  December  1 

2 Experiments  Nos.  2 and  3 began  November  3.  Egg  production  is  figured  for  27  days  and 
also  for  three  days 

3 Average  of  the  three  monthly  per  cents 


In  Table  V is  found  the  average  monthly  egg  production  of  each 
pen  and  the  average  of  the  years. 


12 


By  percentage  egg  production  is  meant  the  per  cent,  of  production 
based  on  one  egg  each  day  per  bird  as  a maximum  or  ioo  per  cent.  If  a 
fowl  lays  an  egg  every  other  day,  her  egg  production  would  be  50  per 
cent.  It  is  by  per  cent,  egg  production  that  the  ability  of  the  birds  to 
lay  is  measured.  The  birds  of  Experiment  No.  1 were  late  in  maturing 
and  so  the  winter  egg  production  was  low  in  all  pens.  This  shortage 
was  made  up  somewhat  during  the  spring  and  summer,  but  it  is  winter 
egg  production  that  helps  to  insure  profit  and  feeding  alone  can  not  make 
this  production.  It  will  be  noted  that  each  year  there  was  a better 
winter  egg  production  and  the  general  tendency  was  for  the  total  egg 
production  to  increase  in  a like  manner.  Such  figures  support  the  belief 
that  winter  egg  production  is  directly  indicative  of  yearly  production ; 
that  early  hatched,  well  matured  pullets  are  necessary  for  good  egg  pro- 
duction and  that  even  the  best  ration  is  reduced  in  its  efficiency  if  fed 
to  poor  stock.  The  meat  scraps  pen  laid  slightly  better  in  winter  than  the 
skim-milk  pen,  but  the  differences  were  slight  and  to  be  expected. 

If  birds  do  not  measure  up  to  egg  production  somewhat  similar  or 
better  than  the  one  discussed,  something  is  wrong  with  the  management. 
Many  flocks  have  done  better  than  these  but  the  figures  indicate  results 
possible  for  the  farmer,  and  which  he  should  strive  to  obtain. 


Table  VI. — Average  Price  in  Cents,  per  Month,  of  Eggs  Sold  from  the 

Purdue  Farm 


Month 

Experiment  No.  1 

Experiment  No.  2 

Experiment  No.  3 

November 

- 

45 

45 

Deeemher 

43 

42 

55 

January 

42 

38 

48 

February 

31 

32 

42 

March 

20 

23 

28 

April 

20 

20 

32 

May  _ 

20 

20 

34 

June 

20 

21 

30 

July 

22 

23 

33 

August 

24 

26 

37 

September 

27 

38 

55 

Oetober 

32 

50 

60 

November 

52 

Table  VI  is  given  to  show  the  average  monthly  price  received  for 
eggs  from  the  Purdue  farm  during  the  three  years  of  the  experiment.  In 
Experiment  No.  2 the  eggs  brought  an  increased  price  over  Experiment 
No.  1 and  in  the  third  experiment,  egg  values  rose  greatly.  This  in- 
crease was  absolutely  necessary  if  the  feed  situation  was  to  be  met,  and 
up  to  the  close  of  the  experiments,  these  egg  prices  were  in  proportion  to 
feed  prices.  Beginning  in  October  and  extending  to  March  each  year, 
Purdue  eggs  were  sold  in  Connecticut  to  a distributer,  bringing  a net  in- 
come greater  than  could  be  obtained  through  the  ordinary  market  chan- 
nels in  Indiana.  During  the  spring  and  summer  months,  the  eggs  were 
sold  in  Indianapolis.  Su^h  prices  as  these  cannot  be  realized  by  the 
farmer  if  he  produces  in  less  than  case  lots  and  sells  to  a gatherer  or  local 


i3 


grocer.  The  Purdue  eggs  were  shipped  in  lots  of  30  dozen  or  more  at  a 
time,  were  strictly  fresh,  clean  and  well  graded.  The  profits  from  good 
feeding  may  be  made  possible  only  through  good  marketing. 


Table  VII. — Average  Income  and  Profit  Over  Feed,  per  Pullet,  per  Year 


Experiment  No. 

Skim-milk  pen 

Meat  scraps  pen 

Check  pen 

Average 

income 

Average 

profit 

Average 

income 

Average 

profit 

Average 

income 

Average 

profit 

1 

$2,769 

$1,303 

$2,232 

$0,832 

$1,832 

$0,137 

2 

2.991 

1.417 

3.11 

1.60 

1.318 

0.154 

3 

4.573 

2.057 

4.793 

2.445 

2.072 

0.162 

Average 

$3,444 

$1,592 

$3,378 

$1,625 

$1,479 

$0,059 

In  Table  VII,  the  final  outcome  of  the  whole  experiment  is  shown 
by  the  figures  of  income  and  profit.  In  figuring  the  income,  the  prices 
received  for  the  general  sale  of-  eggs  from  the  farm  were  taken  as  proper 
figures  to  use. 

Profit  is-  a much  misused  and  misunderstood  term.  Profit  should 
mean  the  difference  between  the  income  and  all  legitimate  expense.  With 
poultrymen,  the  tendency  is  to  figure  the  difference  between  income  and 
the  feed  bill  as  a profit.  There  are  various  reasons  for  not  using  profit 
in  Table  VII  as  it  should  be.  In  the  first  place,  labor  is  a varying  item 
and  no  data  are  available  showing  the  average  cost  of  caring  for  poultry 
on  the  farm.  It  would  seem  better  to  leave  labor  out  and  credit  all  profit 
as  labor  income.  Too  few  data  are  available  on  the  value  of  poultry 
manure,  to  warrant  giving  credit  for  it  on  the  income  side.  These  con- 
ditions made  it  necessary,  in  this  publication,  to  ignore  labor  and  value  of 
manure,  and  consider  only  profit  over  cost  of  feed. 

The  income  was  directly  in  proportion  to  the  egg  production,  the 
greater  the  egg  production,  the  larger  the  income  and  the  heavier  the  profit. 
No  comparison  can  be  made  of  one  year  with  another  because  of  the 
great  differences  in  egg  and  feed  prices,  but  one  pen  can  be  compared 
with  another.  The  average  income  and  profit  of  the  skim-milk  and  meat 
scraps  pens  were  so  nearly  alike  that  the  differences  are  negligible,  but 
the  financial  accounts  of  the  no-meat-food  pens  are  worthy  of  observa- 
tion. The  cost  of  protein  feeds  is  considerable  and  some  people  deem  it 
an  unnecessary  expenditure,  but  there  is  no  argument  but  that  it  was  un- 
profitable in  these  experiments  not  to  provide  milk  and  meat  scraps. 
While  their  absence  from  the  ration  reduced  the  cost,  it  so  cut  down  the 
income  that  there  was  practically  no  profit  and  in  Experiment  No.  1 
there  was  an  actual  loss. 

It  is  profitable  to  feed  skim-milk  or  meat  scraps  in  a laying  ration 
for  Plymouth  Rock  pullets. 


14 


Table  VIII. — Summary  of  Averages 


Skim-milk 

pen 

[ 

Meat  scraps 
pen 

Check 

pen 

Total  number  pounds  feed  consumed  per  bird— 
Post  of  feed  per  bird 

201.82 

$1.79 

0.155 

97.63 

$1.69 

0.152 

83.24 

$1.37 

0.275 

fin, sf  nf  prndneiny  nne  dozen  eggs 

Number  pounds  of  dry  matter  to  produce 
on^  pound  of  eggs 

4.9 

5.14 

9.57 

Eggs  per  pullet 

140.2 

135.9 

61.2 

Income  per  bird 

$3,444 

1.592 

$3,378 

1.625 

$1,479 

0.059 

Profit  oyer  feed  per  pil'd 

Table  VIII  summarizes  the  figures  of  the  preceding  tables  and  shows 
by  bringing  them  together,  still  more  plainly  the  contrast  between  the  re- 
sults of  pens  fed  a sufficient  amount  of  protein  and  the  pen  lacking  it. 
Figures  from  the  experiment  so  far  as  the  dollars  are  concerned  cannot 
be  closely  applied  at  present  because  of  the  national  feed  problem,  but  the 
comparisons  are  of  value  any  time.  An  addition  of  animal  protein  in- 
creases the  appetite,  consumption,  feed  bill  and  cost  of  production,  but 
causes  a larger  egg  yield  and  profit. 


Table  IX. — Feeding  Values  of  Protein  Feeds  per  Hundred  Pounds 


Experiment  No. 

Skim-milk 

Meat  scraps 

1 

$1.55 

$15.10 

2 

1.31 

18.80 

3 

1.94 

26.20 

Average 

$1.60 

$20.03 

In  Table  IX  the  figures  indicate  that  the  feeding  value  of  skim-milk 
for  laying  Plymouth  Rock  pullets  was  $1.60  and  of  meat  scraps  was 
$20.03  Per  hundred  pounds.  This  means  that  for  every  $0.30  invested  in 
skim-milk  $1.60  was  returned  and  for  every  $2.50  invested  in  meat 
scraps,  $20.03  was  returned.1  This  does  not  mean  a person  can  pay 
$20.03  Per  hundred  pounds  for  meat  scraps  and  still  have  a profit,  for 
these  feeding  values  if  included  in  the  cost  would  have  allowed  no  profit. 
The  figures  show  that  it  is  often  profitable  to  spend  money,  if  done  wisely. 

1 For  method  of  determining  these  figures  see  Purdue  Bulletin  No.  182 


Table:  X. — Per  Cent.  Fertility  and  Hatching  Power  of  Eggs 


Experiment  No. 

Fertility  of  eggs 

Skim-milk  pen 

Meat  scraps  pen 

Check  pen 

1 

74.0 

81.0 

81.0 

2 

76.0 

80.7 

82.9 

3 

80.7 

87.1 

88.8 

Average 

76.9 

82.9 

84.2 

Experiment  No. 

Hatching  power  of  eggs 

Skim-milk  pen 

Meat  scraps  pen 

Check  pen 

1 

52.0 

42.6 

56.0 

2 

57.4 

54.4 

52.6 

3 

63.7 

52.7 

53.5 

Average 

57.7 

49.9 

54.0 

The  fertility  and  hatching  power  of  eggs  from  the  different  pens 
are  shown  in  Table  X.  Some  people  believe  that  meat  scraps  injure  the 
fertility  of  eggs  and  that  eggs  from  heavy  layers  do  not  hatch  as  well  as 
eggs  from  poor  layers.  At  no  time  was  the  fertility  particularly  good. 
The  no-meat-food  pen  did  a little  better  each  year  than  the  other  two  pens, 
and  the  meat  scraps  pen  was  better  every  year  than  the  skim-milk  pen. 
When  hatching  power  is  considered,  close  correlation  between  high  fer- 
tility and  hatching  power  is  not  shown.  In  every  year,  the  skim-milk  pen 
hatched  the  best  and  in  two  experiments,  the  meat  scraps  pen  hatched  the 
poorest.  In  the  average  for  the  three  years  the  skim-milk  pen  led,  fol- 
lowed by  the  check  pen.  From  the  figures  shown,  even  though  lower  than 
would  be  expected  on  the  farms  of  Indiana,  it  would  seem  that  for  hatch- 
ing purposes,  milk  was  better  than  meat  scraps.  As  before  stated,  all  the 
birds  were  pullets,  which  might  account  for  the  low  hatching  power  of 
the  eggs. 


Table:  XI. — Average  Number  Pounds  of  Manure  Produced  At  Night 


Experiment  No. 

Skim-milk  pen 

Meat  scraps  pen 

Check  pen 

1 

27.3 

27.1 

26.8 

2 

27.2 

26.9 

30.7 

3 

23.8 

28.1 

29.5 

Average 

26.1 

27.3 

29.0 

The  amounts  of  manure  produced  during  the  nights  as  shown  in 
Table  XI  were  secured  by  weighing  the  roost  collections  every  week. 
These,  of  course,  varied,  due  to  being  frozen  or  to  damp  or  dry  weather. 
They  cannot  be  considered  accurate  but  indicate  how  much  a bird  does 


i6 


return  in  fertility.  If  the  night  droppings  are  two-fifths  of  the  whole 
amount,  then  ioo  birds  will  return  to  the  soil  about  three  and  one-half 
tons  of  highly  nitrogenous  fertilizer  per  year.  The  value  of  this  manure 
will  vary  considerably  but  if  credited  at  $5.00  per  ton  it  will  help  pay 
expenses. 


Table  XII. — Mortality  of  Birds  in  Pens 


Experiment  No. 

Skim-milk  pen 

Meat  scraps  pen 

Check  pen 

1 

5 

10 

6 

2 

8 

3 

10 

3 

1 

4 

2 

Average 

4.6 

5.6 

6.0 

The  figures  in  Table  XII  do  not  indicate  that  the  rations  fed  had  any 
influence  on  the  health  of  the  birds.  It  is  quite  a problem  to  keep  fowls 
under  experimental  conditions,  even  at  the  best,  and  keep  the  average 
loss  at  10  or  12  per  cent,  as  most  commercial  poultrymen  figure.  No 
disease  broke  out  in  the  flocks,  but  occasionally  a bird  died  from  repro- 
ductive troubles  or  intestinal  complications  when  no  other  bird  had  been 
ill  for  weeks.  In  Experiment  No.  3,  the  birds  were  the  best  physically  of 
any  in  the  experiments  and  consequently  the  losses  were  low. 


Fig.  4.  Birds-eye  view  of  Purdue  Poultry  farm,  showing  lay-out  of  experimental  houses  and 
yards.  Note  natural  environment  made  by  fruit  trees,  grass  plots  and 
abundance  of  range 


PART  II— HENS 

INTRODUCTION 

At  the  close  of  Experiments  Nos.  i and  2 described  in  Part  I of  this 
bulletin,  the  question  arose  as  to  whether  or  not  the  poor  egg  production 
in  the  no-meat-food  pens  had  been  due  to  the  lack  of  animal  protein  or 
to  poor  laying  powers  of  the  birds  concerned.  In  order  to  determine  this 
point,  the  pullets  in  the  no-meat-food  or  check  pens  finishing  the  first 
years  were,  as  hens,  put  on  to  the  skim-milk  ration  and  the  skim-milk-fed 
birds  continued  on  their  own  ration  for  another  year. 

The  birds  were  housed,  yarded,  fed  and  handled  the  same  as  when 
they  were  pullets,  and  it  was  thought  that  any  differences  that  might  be 
produced  must  come  from  the  presence  or  absence  of  skim-milk. 


Table  I. — Average  Consumption  of  All  Feeds  per  Bird,  in  Pounds,  as 
Hens  and  Pullets — Two  Years 


Feed 

Skim-milk  pen 

Skim-miljc  pen 

Check  pen 

Cheek  pen 

hens 

pullets 

hens 

pullets 

/ 

Corn 

31.59 

31.13 

33.28 

30.26 

Wheat  

12.74 

15.07 

14.57 

14.83 

Oats  _ 

11.33 

11.55 

11.96 

11.27 

Bran  _ _ _ 

11.32 

11.53 

11.96 

11.25 

Shorts 

11.32 

11.53 

11.96 

11.25 

Oil  meal 

0.75 

0.44 

0.78 

0.44 

Total  _ 

79.05 

81.25 

84.51 

79.30 

Skim-milk 

113.15 

115.74 

119.59 

Grit  _ 

0.66 

1.28 

0.63 

1.24 

Oyster  shell 

2.12 

2.33 

1.52 

2.53 

Ground  bone 

0.66 

1.22 

0.63 

1.18 

Grand  total  _ 

195.64 

201.82 

207.89 

83.24 

Table  I shows  the  average  consumption  of  feed  by  the  same  birds  as 
pullets  and  as  hens.  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  check  pen  pullets  re- 
ceived no  milk  but  that  as  hens  they  obtained  as  much  milk  in  the  ration 
as  the  milk-fed  pen.  For  the  sake  of  distinguishing  the  pens,  the  “check 
pen”  retained  that  title  in  both  years. 

The  difference  in  consumption  of  the  chief  feeds,  between  the  check 
and  skim-milk  pullets  is  very  small,  and  when  the  difference  in  egg  pro- 
duction is  recalled,  it  appears  as  if  it  was  the  relatively  small  amount  of 
animal  protein  added  that  caused  the  egg  production.  Egg  production  is 
not  always  a question  of  amount  consumed,  as  it  is  the  kind  of  feed  con- 
sumed. Heavy  laying  does  require  increased  feed  above  normal  but  it 
must  be  of  the  right  kind. 

The  difference  in  feed  consumed  in  the  skim-milk  pen  both  as  hens 
and  pullets  is  very  slight.  The  check  pen  did  consume  slightly  more  of 
the  chief  feeds  and  an  abundance  of  milk  when  given  an  opportunity.  As 
will  be  noted  in  Table  III,  the  check  pen  hens  laid  more  than  the  pullets, 
This  was  due  to  the  skim-milk.  Animal  protein  stimulates  appetite  and 


since  the  ration  was  balanced,  more  of  the  grain  was  eaten.  An  abund- 
ance of  grain  supplemented  by  skim-milk  will  produce  eggs. 


Table  II. — Cost  of  Feed,  per  Bird,  per  Year,  and  Cost  of  Producing 

One  Dozen  Eggs 


Hens — Skim-milk  pen 

Hens— Check  pen 

Pullets— Skim-milk  pen 

Experiment 
. No. 

Cost  feed 

Cost 

one  dozen 
eggs 

Cost  feed 

Cost 

one  dozen 
eggs 

Cost  feed 

Cost 

one  dozen 
eggs 

1 

$1.43 

$0,178 

$1.50 

$0,149 

$1.52 

$0,138 

2 

2.28 

0.237 

2.39 

0.199 

2.46 

0.208 

Average 

$1.85 

$0,207 

$1.94 

e- 

0 

e/2- 

$1.99 

$0,178 

Table  II  gives  the  cost  factors.  The  feed  costs  of  pullets  in  a skim- 
milk  pen,  fed  the  same  year  as  the  hens  in  Experiments  Nos.  i and  2 are 
given  to  show  that  hens  are  about  as  expensive  to  feed  as  pullets,  and  be- 
cause they  lay  fewer  eggs,  it  costs  more  to  produce  one  dozen  eggs.  It 
costs  a little  more  to  feed  the  check  pens  as  hens  than  it  did  the  skim- 
milk  pens,  due  probably  to  the  slight  increase  in  egg  production. 


Table  III.— Average  Number  of  Eggs,  per  Hen  and  Pullet,  per  Pen, 

per  Year 


Skim-milk  pen 

Check  pen 

Experiment 

No. 

Hens 

Pullets 

Hens 

Pullets 

1 

99.7 

138.7 

126.8 

54.3 

2 

119.6 

135.9 

150.0 

61.4 

Average 

109.6 

137.3 

138.4 

57.8 

Table  III  shows  the  real  point  of  the  hen  test,  the  egg  production. 
As  pullets  the  check  pens  layed  from  84  to  74  less  eggs  per  bird  than 
the  skim-milk  pen.  The  difference  between  one  year  and  the  next  is 
very  small.  The  skim-milk  birds  as  hens  laid  39  to  14  less  eggs  than  they 
did  as  pullets.  This  is  normal  and  to  be  expected.  A production  of  137 
eggs  is  a good  pullet  average  and  109  eggs  is  a good  lay  for  a hen. 

The  check  pens  did  very  poorly  as  pullets  but  when  given  an  oppor- 
tunity to  drink  milk,  they  increased  their  own  production  72  to  89 
eggs  and  outlayed  the  pen  that  had  been  fed  skim-milk  for  two  years. 
I11  one  case  the  check  pen  birds  laid  more  eggs  as  hens  than  any  other 
pen  did  as  pullets. 

This  indicates  rather  conclusively  that  the  lack  of  skim-milk  retards 
the  egg  production  and  that  the  ability  to  produce  eggs  may  be  present  in 
a hen  yet  not  manifest  itself,  due  to  improper  feeding. 


Table  IV.— Average  Per  Cent.  Egg  Production  per  Month,  per  Hen  and 

Pullet 


Month 

Skim-milk  pen 

Check  pen 

Experiment  No.  1 

Experiment  No.  2 

Experiment  No.  1 

Experiment  No.  2 

Hens 

Pullets 

Hens 

Pullets 

Hens 

Pullets 

Hens 

Pullets 

November 

11.5 

10.0 

15.8 

10.0 

December 

11.0 

0.9 

1 10.0 

8.0 

31.0 

0.0 

35.0 

6.0 

January 

10.0 

2.6 

! 34.0 

14.5 

26.9 

0.0 

38.5 

8.7 

February 

20.0 

18.0 

i 39.0 

25.6 

38.0 

13.0 

59.0 

22.0 

March 

50.0 

61.0 

55.8 

58.0 

58.0 

23.0 

59.6 

29.0 

April 

63.0 

70.0 

49.0 

68.9 

63.0 

42.0 

53.0 

38.9 

May 

46.0 

60.0 

43.6 

62.0 

43.0 

21.0 

54.0 

41.0 

June 

39.0 

58.0 

38.7 

62.6 

38.0 

30.0 

44.0 

29.0 

July 

31.0 

50.0 

23.0 

40.0 

31.0 

10.0 

36.6 

4.6 

August 

17.0 

45.0 

31.0 

41.0 

25.0 

11.0 

30.5 

0.1 

September 

24.0 

38.0 

40.0 

37.0 

1 30.0 

6.8 

41.5 

3.5 

October 

8.4 

39.0 

15.6 

20.0 

! 140 

8.4 

22.7 

1.3 

November 

4.0  | 

17.0 

8.0 

36.0 

8.0 

7.7 

15.0 

0.0 

Most  poultrymen  measure  egg  production  in  percentage,  and  Table 
IV  gives  the  per  cent,  egg  production  from  the  two  flocks  as  hens  and 
pullets.  A careful  analysis  and  study  of  the  figures  show  some  rather 
unexpected  and  unusual  things.  In  no  case  did  the  pullets  do  very  well 
as  fall  and  winter  egg  producers,  and  in  Experiment  No.  i where  the 
birds  were  late  hatched,  the  production  was  very  poor.  In  no  pen  did 
the  pullets  equal  the  hens  in  fall  and  winter  production  This  is  not  to 
be  expected.  In  Experiment  No.  2,  the  pullets  in  both  the  skim-milk 
and  check  pens  laid  about  the  same  until  January,  when  any  stored  up 
protein  food  in  the  body  was  exhausted,  and  the  check  pen  birds  fell  off 
in  production.  The  November  record  at  the  bottom  of  the  columns  for 
Experiment  No.  2 is  hardly  fair  to  consider  because  it  is  based  on  the 
first  three  days  of  the  month  only. 

The  pullets  in  the  check  pens  began  molting  in  July  which  caused  a 
big  drop  in  production.  These  birds  were  well  finished  as  to  feather  in 
November  and  December  and  responded  quickly  to  the  addition  of  milk 
in  the  ration,  by  giving  a very  good  winter  egg  production.  This  produc- 
tion was  in  reality  better  than  the  milk-fed  pullet  lay.  Most  of  the  pul- 
lets in  the  milk-fed  pens  began  molting  in  October  and  November,  and 
they  showed  poor  egg  laying  in  November  and  December  and  part  of 
January.  This  is  normally  to  be  expected  of  hens,  but  it  was  rather  un- 
usual for  the  winter  egg  production  to  be  better  with  the  hens  than  it 
was  with  the  same  birds  as  pullets. 

Early  molters  usually  take  longer  to  molt  than  late  molters  and  so 
little  is  gained  by  keeping  the  early  molters  if  winter  egg  production  is 
desired  from  hens.  Early  molting  not  only  indicates  poor  laying  but 
marks  the  innately  poor  producer.  In  this  experiment  with  the  check 
pen,  early  molting  accompanied  poor  laying  but  did  not  necessarily  indi- 
cate poor  laying  ability.  Early  molters  that  were  poorly  and  improperly 
fed  might  be  wisely  chosen  for  winter  egg  production  as  hens,  if  proper 
feed  is  given,  beginning  in  the  fall. 


20 


Table  V. — Average  Income  and  Profit  Over  Feed,  per  Hen,  per  Year 


Skim-milk  pen 

Check  pen 

Skim-milk  pen 

Experiment 

No. 

Hens 

Hens 

Pullets 

Average 

income 

Average 

profit 

Average 

income 

Average 

profit 

Average 

income 

Average 

profit 

1 

2 

$2.13 

3.79 

$0.64 

1.42 

$2.95 

4.92 

$1.38 

2.42 

$2.99 

4.57 

$1.41 

2.05 

Average 

$2.96 

$1.03 

$3.93 

$1.90 

$3.78 

$1.73 

Table  V shows  the  income  and  profit  over  feed  of  the  pens  under  con- 
sideration. In  these  days,  such  figures  are  misleading  unless  used  large- 
ly for  comparison.  Income  and  profit  are  shown  for  pullets  fed  the  same 
ration  the  same  years  the  hens  were  fed,  and  are  of  value,  in  that  they 
show  that  the  check  pen  birds  as  hens  did  as  well  or  better  than  pullets 
at  the  same  time  on  the  same  ration.  The  check  pen  birds  produced 
$0.97  more  income  and  $1.03  more  profit  than  the  milk-fed  pen.  They 
became  efficient  producers  when  given  a chance. 


Table  VI. — Per  Cent.  Fertility  and  Hatching  Power  of  Eggs — 
Hens  and  Pullets 

Fertility  of  Eggs 


Experiment 

No. 

Skim-milk  pen 

Check  pen 

Hens  Pullets 

Hens 

Pullets 

1 

2 

88.0 

92.2 

74.0 

76.0 

80.0 

96.4 

81.0 

82.9 

Average 

90.1 

75 

88.2 

87.9 

Hatching  Power  of  Eggs 


Skim-milk  pen 

Check  pen 

Experiment 

No. 

Hens 

Pullets 

Hens 

Pullets 

1 

57.2 

52.0 

45.7 

56.0 

2 

56.8 

57.4 

61.8 

52.6 

Average 

57.0 

54.7 

53.7 

54.3 

In  Table  VI  is  found  data  on  fertility  and  hatching  power.  In  fer- 
tility the  hens  averaged  better  than  the  pullets  to  a marked  degree,  but 
the  differences  in  “hatchability”  were  less  marked.  Differences  between 
check  and  milk  pens  among  the  hens  were  slight. 


PURDUE  UNIVERSITY 


Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


Bulletin  No.  219 
September,  1918 


SWINE  FEEDING 


FEEDING  TRIALS  WITH  CORN  BY-PRODUCTS,  PALMO  MIDDS, 
AND  COMMERCIAL  MIXED  HOG  FEEDS,  1917-1918 


Part  I.  Corn  Feed  Meals  vs.  Ground  Corn 

Part  II.  Hominy  Feed  vs.  Ground  Corn 

Part  III.  Corn  Germ  Meals 

Part  IV.  Palmo  Midds 

Part  V.  Commercial  Mixed  Hog  Feeds 


Published  by  the  Station: 
LAFAYETTE,  INDIANA 
U.  S.  A. 


PURDUE  UNIVERSITY  AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 


BOARD  OP  CONTROL 
Joseph  D.  Oliver,  President,  South  Bend 


Fay  S.  Chandler  Indianapolis 

Charles  Downing  ...  .. Greenfield 

John  A.  Hillenbrand  . Batesville 

Cyrus  M.  Hobbs  Bridgeport 


Winthrop  E.  Stone,  A.  M.,  Ph.  D. 


Warren  T.  McCray  Kentland 

James  W.  Noel  Indianapolis 

Andrew  E.  Reynolds  Crawfordsville 

William  V.  Stuart  LaFayette 


President  of  the  University 


ADVISORY  COMMITTEE 
(Under  Legislative  Act  of  1909) 

John  G.  Brown,  Monon D.  B,  Johnson,  Mooresville.. 

State  Live  Stock  Association  State  Dairy  Association 

U.  R.  Fishel,  Hope D.  F.  Maish,  Frankfort 

State  Poultry  Fanciers'’  Association  State  Corn  Growers'  Association 

F.  J.  Heacock,  Salem Indiana  Horticultural  Society 


ADMINISTRATION 

Charles  G.  Woodbury,  M.  S.,  Director 

Harry  J.  Reed Assistant  to  the  Director 

Nellie  Tracy Administrative  Assistant 

Mary  K.  Bloom Bookkeeper 

AGRICULTURAL  EXTENSION 
George  I.  Christie,  B.  S.  A.,  Superintendent 
Thomas  A.  Coleman. .State  County  Agent  Leader 

George  M.  Frier,  B.  S.  A Associate  in 

Short  Courses  and  Exhibits 
Mabel  L.  HARLAN..Ass’t  in  Agricultural  Extension 

ANIMAL  HUSBANDRY 
John  H.  Skinner,  B.  S.,  Chief 

Claude  M.  Vestal,  B.  S 

Associate  in  Animal  Husbandry 

George  A.  Branaman,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Animal  Husbandry 

Herbert  E.  McCartney,  B.  S.  A 

Ass’t  in  Animal  Husbandry  Extension 

BOTANY 

Herbert  S,  Jackson,  A.  B.,  Chief 

George  N.  Hoffer,  M.  S Associate  in  Botany 

Luna  E.  Allison,  B.  S Assistant  in  Botany 

Edwin  B.  Mains,  Ph.  D Assistant  in  Botany 

DAIRY  HUSBANDRY 
Ollie  E.  Reed,  M.  S.,  Chief 

Howard  W.  Gregory,  B.  S 

Associate  in  Dairy  Manufactures 

George  Spitzer,  Ph.  G.,  B.  S 

Associate  in  Dairy  Chemistry 

Turner  H.  Broughton,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Creamery  Inspection 

William  F.  Epple,  Ph.  G 

Assistant  in  Dairy  Chemistry 

Hubert  W.  Fleisher,  B.  S.  A 

Assistant  in  Creamery  Inspection 

ENTOMOLOGY 
James  Troop,  M.  S.,  Chief 

FARM  MECHANICS 

William  Aitkenhead,  M.  E.,  M.  A 

Specialist  in  Farm  Mechanics 

HORTICULTURE 
Laurenz  Greene,  M.  S.  A.,  Chief 

Joseph  Oskamp,  B.  S Associate  in  Pomology 

Walter  A.  Huelson,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Horticulture 

NUTRITION 

Ralph  H.  Carr,  Ph.  D 

Associate  in  Nutrition  Chemistry 

POULTRY  HUSBANDRY 
Allen  G.  Philips,  B.  S.  A.,  Chief 

Dwight  C.  Kennard,  Ph.  C.,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Husbandry 


SOILS  AND  CROPS 
Alfred  T.  Wiancko,  B.  S.  A.,  Chief 

Martin  L.  Fisher,  M.  S 

Assistant  Chief  in  Soils  and  Crops 

Samuel  D.  Conner,  M.  S 

Associate  Chemist  in  Soils  and  Crops 

Clinton  O.  Cromer,  B.  S Associate  in  Crops 

Sadocie  C.  Jones,  M.  S Associate  in  Soils 

Ernest  N.  Fergus,  M.  Sc 

Assistant  in  Soils  and  Crops 

STATE  CHEMIST 

Edward  G.  Proulx,  M.  S.1 State  Chemist 

Reuben  O.  Bitler,  B.  S.2... .Deputy  State  Chemist 

Margaret  Briggs,  B.  S Deputy  State  Chemist 

Paul  B.  Curtis,  B.  S.2 ..Deputy  State  Chemist 

Omar  W.  Ford,  A.  B.2 Deputy  State  Chemist 

Herman  J.  Nimitz,  B.  S.2.. Deputy  State  Chemist 

J.  Howard  Roop,  B.  S.2 Deputy  State  Chemist 

Samuel  F.  Thornton,  B.  S.2 

Deputy  State  Chemist 

Otis  S.  Roberts,  B.  S.2 

Chief  Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

Glen  G.  Carter,  B.  S.2 

Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

Benjamin  F.  Catherwood2 

Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

William  B.  Tiedt  

Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

VETERINARY  SCIENCE 
Robert  A.  Craig,  D.  V.  M.,  Chief 
David  B.  Clark,  D.  M.  C.. -Associate  Veterinarian 

Lawrence  C,  Kigin,  D.  V.  M 

Associate  Veterinarian 

George  N.  Roberts,  D.  V.  M 

Associate  Veterinarian 

Rex  A.  Whiting,  D.  V.  M 

Associate  in  Animal  Pathology 
Frank  I.  Cason,  B.  S... Ass’t  in  Serum  Production 

Leo  P.  Doyle,  B.  S Ass’t  in  Animal  Pathology 

Leslie  R.  George,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Animal  Pathology 
Fred  L.  Walkey,  D.  V.  M Ass’t  Veterinarian 

DETAILED  BY  U.  S.  DEPARTMENT  OF 
AGRICULTURE 

Cereal  and  Forage  Crop  Insect  Investigations 
John  J.  Davis,  B.  S.,  Entomological 
Assistant  in  Charge 

John  M.  Aldrich,  Ph.D.,  Entomological  Assistant 

Herman  J.  Hart,  B.  S. Scientific  Assistant 

Wesley  O.  Hollister,  B.  S... Scientific  Assistant 

Dean  A.  Ricker,  B.  S Scientific  Assistant 

Chester  F.  Turner,  B.  S Scientific  Assistant 

Seed  Testing 

Anna  M.  Lute,  M.  A Seed  Analyst 


1 In  charge  of  Fertilizer  and  Feeding  Stuff  Control 

2 Connected  with  Fertilizer  and  Feeding  Stuff  Control 


FEEDING  TRIALS  WITH  CORN  BY-PRODUCTS, 
PALMO  MIDDS,  AND  COMMERCIAL  MIXED 
HOG  FEEDS,  1917-1918 

J.  H.  Skinner  C.  G.  Starr 

SUMMARY 
PART  I 

CORN  FEED  MEALS  vs.  GROUND  CORN 

The  corn  feed  meals  were  considered  as  substitutes  for  corn. 

The  corn  feed  meals,  for  the  best  results,  should  be  supplemented 
with  some  protein  feeds  such  as  tankage,  oil  meal,  skim-milk,  soybeans, 
or  other  protein  concentrates. 

The  corn  feed  meals  produced  as  rapid  gains  on  hogs  as  ground  corn. 

The  corn  feed  meals  produced  pork  as  economically  as  ground  corn. 

The  corn  feed  meals  may  satisfactorily  replace  corn  where  obtain- 
able at  prices  equal  to  those  for  matured  sound  corn. 

PART  II 

HOMINY  FEED  vs.  GROUND  CORN 

Hominy  feed  manufactured  at  the  present  time  is  not  as  efficient  in 
fattening  hogs  as  the  hominy  feed  formerly  produced. 

Hominy  feed  made  somewhat  smaller  daily  gains  than  ground  corn. 

Hominy  feed  produced  pork  almost  as  economically  as  well  matured 
ground  corn. 

Hominy  feed  may  be  used  in  replacing  corn  in  hog  fattening  rations 
where  obtainable  and  at  prices  on  equality  with  sound  corn. 

PART  III 

CORN  GERM  MEALS 

Starch  corn  germ  meal,  when  fed  dry,  was  not  palatable  to  fattening 
hogs. 

Hominy  corn  germ  meal  was  much  more  efficient  when  fed  alone  and 
dry,  than  starch  corn  germ  meal. 

Hominy  corn  germ  meal,  when  fed  dry,  is  not  as  palatable  to  hogs 
as  a ration  of  ground  corn  and  tankage. 

A ration  of  ground  corn  and  tankage  was  much  more  efficient  than 
either  of  the  corn  germ  meals,  in  rapidity  of  gains,  consumption  of  feeds 
and  economy  of  production. 

The  addition  of  corn  to  the  corn  germ  meals  increased  the  consump- 
tion of  feed,  produced  more  rapid  gains,  and  resulted  in  greater  economy 
than  corn  germ  meal  fed  alone. 

The  addition  of  tankage  to  starch  corn  germ  meal  is  not  advisable 
nor  profitable. 

As  total  substitutes  for  tankage  in  supplementing  ground  corn  in  hog 
fattening  rations,  the  corn  germ  meals  were  not  satisfactory. 


4 


As  a partial  substitute  for  tankage,  starch  corn  germ  meal  was  not 
as  efficient  in  producing  gains  or  economy  of  production  as  hominy  corn 
germ  meal. 

Hominy  corn  germ  meal  was  apparently  satisfactory  as  a partial 
substitute  for  tankage. 

Hogs  consumed  starch  corn  germ  meal  mixed  with  tankage,  when 
fed  dry,  much  better  than  when  fed  twice  daily  as  a slop. 

In  all  rations  thus  far  tested,  starch  corn  germ  meal  is  apparently  not 
palatable  to  hogs. 

Hominy  corn  germ  meal  was  apparently  much  more  palatable  than 
starch  corn  germ  meal. 

PART  IV 

PALMO  MIDDS 

Hogs  fed  Palmo  Midds  in  addition  to  the  basal  ration  of  ground 
corn  and  tankage,  gained  15.7  per  cent,  more  rapidly  than  hogs  fed 
standard  wheat  middlings  in  addition  to  the  basal  ration. 

The  hogs  fed  the  ground  corn  and  tankage,  however,  gained  4.9  per 
cent,  more  rapidly  than  the  hogs  fed  Palmo  Midds. 

The  hog3  fed  the  ground  corn  and  tankage  and  Palmo  Midds  con- 
sumed more  feed  than  those  receiving  standard  wheat  middlings  in  addi- 
tion to  the  ground  corn  and  tankage  or  those  receiving  the  basal  ration 
only. 

The  hogs  fed  Palmo  Midds  in  addition  to  the  ground  corn  and  tank- 
age required  9.5  per  cent,  more  feed  per  100  pounds  of  gain  than  the  hogs 
fed  standard  middlings  in  addition  to  the  basal  ration  and  13.2  per  cent, 
more  feed  than  the  hogs  fed  ground  corn  and  tankage  alone. 

PART  V 

COMMERCIAL  MIXED  HOG  FEEDS 

The  two  commercial  mixed  hog  feeds  did  not  produce  pork  as  rapidly 
or  as  economically  as  the  ration  consisting  of  ground  corn  and  tankage. 

INTRODUCTION 

In  previous  years,  corn  has  been  the  basis  of  rations  used  for  the 
production  of  pork.  Corn  has  usually  been  available  on  the  average 
Corn  Belt  farm  at  lower  prices  than  any  substitute.  However,  recent 
changes  in  general  economic  conditions  and  demands  made  necessary  by 
the  war,  have  created  a different  situation. 

The  scarcity  and  exceedingly  high  prices  for  corn  during  the  spring 
and  summer  of  1917  caused  a very  great  demand  for  corn  substitutes. 
The  very  poor  quality  and  feeding  value  of  the  1917  corn  crop  in  many 
counties  created  additional  demands  for  something  to  feed  hogs  other 
than  corn.  It  may  be  said  that  suddenly  the  hog  growers  were  very  much 


5 

more  interested  in  corn  substitutes  than  supplemental  feeds  to  combine 
with  corn. 

Unfortunately  at  the  time  of  this  sudden  demand,  little  reliable  in- 
formation concerning  the  relative  feeding  value  of  many  corn  substitutes 
for  hogs  was  obtainable.  The  most  of  the  experimental  feeding  in  the 
Corn  Belt  had  formerly  been  along  lines  of  vital  interest  to  the  pork  pro- 
ducers. These  investigations  were  with  supplemental  feeds,  different 
methods  of  feeding,  the  use  of  forage  crops,  etc. 

The  increased  use  of  corn  for  the  manufacture  of  human  food  stuffs 
has,  in  recent  years,  greatly  increased  the  tonnage  of  corn  by-products, 
thus  causing  the  manufacturers  of  corn  flour,  hominy,  corn  meal,  starch, 
syrups,  corn  oil,  etc.,  to  seek  markets  for  their  by-products. 

The  embargo  on  exportation  of  corn  germ  cake  or  meal  to  European 
countries  threw  upon  the  American  market  great  quantities  of  corn  germ 
meal.  Previous  to  1917,  comparatively  little  corn  germ  meal  had  been 
used  on  American  farms.  The  need  for  a market  caused  the  manufac- 
turers to  push  the  sales  of  this  by-product  very  vigorously.  Although  little 
was  known  of  the  feeding  value  of  corn  germ  meal,  either  by  the  salesmen 
or  consumers,  many  extravagant  claims  were  made  for  it. 

OBJECT 

It  may  be  stated  that  this  bulletin  is  a report  of  progress  in  the  study 
of  the  relative  feeding  value  and  place  of  the  different  corn  by-products, 
Palmo  Midds,  and  commercial  mixed  hog  feeds  in  pork  production.  The 
data  and  conclusions  presented  are  not  final,  since  additional  work  with 
these  feeds  is  contemplated. 

The  objects  in  view  were  to  determine,  if  possible,  the  best  methods 
of  feeding  these  by-products  and  to  determine  the  peculiarities  of  the 
feeds  when  fed  to  hogs.  The  second  trial  was  a continuation  of  the 
more  promising  rations  used  in  the  first  trial  and  a check  upon  others  be- 
fore making  definite  conclusions.  The  third  trial  was  a further  continua- 
tion of  the  investigation  to  determine  the  place  and  value  of  the  corn 
germ  meals,  and  an  effort  to  determine  the  relative  feeding  value  of 
Palmo  Midds  and  standard  wheat  middlings  and  the  relative  feeding  value 
of  two  common  commercial  hog  feeds  as  compared  with  a standard 
ration  of  ground  corn  and  tankage. 

In  this  work  the  State  Chemist’s  Department  has  cooperated  in 
every  way  possible  with  the  Animal  Husbandry  Department  in  planning 
the  trials  and  in  analyzing  all  the  feeds  used. 


6 


PLAN 


In  the  first  trial,  the  following  rations  were  fed  in  self-feeders,  the 
hogs  being  allowed  to  have  free  choice  of  all  feeds  offered. 

Lot  i.  Corn  feed  meal  No.  i plus  tankage 
Lot  2.  Corn  feed  meal  No.  2 plus  tankage 
Lot  3.  Corn  feed  meal  No.  3 plus  tankage 
Lot  4.  Corn  germ  meal  (starch  by-product) 

Lot  5.  Corn  germ  meal  (starch  by-product)  plus  ground  corn 
Lot  6.  Corn  germ  meal  (starch  by-product)  plus  tankage 
Lot  7.  Corn  germ  meal  (hominy  by-product) 

Lot  8.  Hominy  feed  plus  tankage 
v Lot  9.  Ground  corn  plus  tankage 

In  the  second  trial,  the  following  rations  were  again  fed  in  self- 
feeders  to  the  hogs. 

A mixture  of  one  part  corn  germ  meal  and  one  part  tankage 
plus  ground  corn 

Corn  feed  meal  No.  2 plus  tankage 
Corn  feed  meal  No.  3 plus  tankage 
Corn  germ  meal  (starch  by-product) 

Mixture  of  one  part  corn  germ  meal  (starch  by-product) 
and  one  part  ground  corn 

Mixture  of  one  part  corn  germ  meal  (starch  by-product)  and 
three  parts  ground  corn 
Corn  germ  meal  (hominy  by-product) 

Hominy  meal  plus  tankage 
Ground  corn  plus  tankage 

Mixture  of  one  part  ground  corn  and  three  parts  corn  germ 
meal  (hominy  by-product) 

In  the  third  trial  the  hogs  were  fed  the  following  rations  in  self- 
feeders,  except  in  Lot  9,  where  the  mixture  of  corn  germ  meal  and  tank- 
age was  fed  in  the  form  of  a slop  twice  daily.  The  hogs  in  the  lots  receiv- 
ing the  mixture  had  free  choice  of  the  mixture  and  ground  corn,  and  of 
the  tankage  and  ground  corn  in  Lot  6. 

Lot  1.  Mixture  of  one  part  corn  germ  meal  (starch  by-product)  and 
one  part  tankage  plus  ground  corn 
Lot  2.  Mixture  of  three  parts  corn  germ  meal  (starch  by-product) 
and  one  part  tankage  plus  ground  corn 
Lot  3.  Mixture  of  three  parts  corn  germ  meal  (hominy  by-product) 
and  one  part  tankage  plus  ground  corn 
Lot  4.  Mixture  of  three  parts  standard  wheat  middlings  and  one 
part  tankage  plus  ground  corn 

Lot  5.  Mixture  of  three  parts  Palmo  Midds  and  one  part  tankage 
plus  ground  corn 

^ Lot  6.  Tankage  plus  ground  corn 

Lot  7.  Commercial  mixed  hog  feed  No.  1 
Lot  8.  Commercial  mixed  hog  feed  No.  2 

Lot  9.  Mixture  of  three  parts  corn  germ  meal  (starch  by-product) 
and  one  part  tankage  slop  plus  ground  corn 


Lot 

1 

Lot 

2. 

Lot 

3- 

Lot 

4- 

Lot 

5- 

Lot 

6. 

Lot 

7. 

Lot 

8. 

J Lot 

9- 

Lot 

10. 

7 


YARDS,  SHELTER  AND  WATER 

The  hogs  in  the  first  trial  were  quartered  in  the  lots  used  in  winter 
for  feeding  cattle  and  lambs.  These  are  dry  lots  with  sheds  over  prac- 
tically one-half  of  them.  The  outside  portion  of  the  cattle  pens  is  floored 
with  concrete  while  the  floor  of  the  shed  portion  is  of  earth.  The  floors 
of  the  sheep  feeding  pens,  both  inside  and  out,  are  of  earth.  In  these 
pens,  the  hogs  kept  comparatively  cool  during  the  hottest  days  of  the 
feeding  period.  Water  from  the  public  water  system  was  supplied  twice 
daily  in  troughs  which  were  kept  clean.  The  hogs  had  access  to  the  dif- 
ferent feeds  in  large  self-feeders. 

The  hogs  in  the  second  trial  were  fed  in  the  experimental  hog  feed- 
ing lots  which  are  26  feet  by  70  feet.  Each  lot  is  provided  with  a well- 
built  house,  sufficiently  large  to  properly  house  from  7 to  10  hogs. 
The  lots  were  free  from  grass  and  other  vegetation.  The  hogs  in  this 
trial  had  free  access  to  large  self-feeders  on  concrete  feeding  floors  in 
each  lot  and  adso  to  small  self-feeders  placed  inside  the  houses.  Water 
was  supplied  as  in  the  first  trial. 

The  hogs  in  the  third  trial  were  housed  throughout  the  experiment 
in  pens  in  the  hyper-immune  barn  of  the  serum  plant  of  the  Veterinary 
Department.  The  pens  have  concrete  floors,  steel  partitions  and  are  12 
to  16  feet  wide  and  16  feet  in  length.  The  pens  were  regularly  cleaned 
once  daily.  The  feeds  were  offered  in  small  self-feeders  placed  in  each 
pen.  A concrete  watering  trough  furnished  water  at  all  times. 

WEIGHTS 

Each  animal  was  weighed  for  3 consecutive  days  at  the  begin- 
ning and  end  of  the  trial,  the  average  of  the  3 days’  weights  being 
taken  as  the  initial  and  final  weights.  Every  30  days  during  the  progress 
of  the  trial,  the  animals  were  weighed  individually.  Every  10  days  dur- 
ing the  trial,  each  lot  was  weighed  as  a group.  All  weights  were  taken 
at  9 :oo  a.  m.,  without  restrictions  on  feed  or  water. 

The  hogs  were  identified  by  numbered  ear  tags. 

In  all  lots  where  the  rations  were  fed  in  self-feeders,  the  feeds 
were  weighed  as  placed  in  the  feeders.  Every  30  days,  the  feeders  were 
emptied  of  contents,  the  remainders  were  weighed  and  the  amount  de- 
ducted from  the  total  amount  placed  in  the  feeders  during  the  month,  in 
order  to  determine  the  amount  consumed.  In  case  of  Tot  9 in  the  third 
trial,  the  mixture  fed  in  the  form  of  slop  was  weighed  at  each  feeding, 
while  the  ground  corn  was  fed  in  self-feeders  the  same  as  in  the  other  lots. 

METHOD  OF  FEEDING 

The  self-feeders  used  in  the  trials  were  sufficiently  large  to  accommo- 
date the  hogs  at  all  times.  The  feeders  were  inspected  at  least  twice 
daily  and  the  feeds  and  feeding  slides  so  regulated  that  ample  feed  was 
before  the  hogs  at  all  times.  Care  was  taken  that  as  little  feed  as  pos- 
sible was  wasted  but  no  attempt  was  made  to  so  limit  the  hogs  that  they 
would  be  forced  through  hunger  to  consume  all  feed  that  might  be  rooted 
out  of  the  feeder.  It  was  found  that  in  all  cases  where  the  rations  were 


8 


palatable,  the  hogs  wasted  very  little  feed.  In  some  cases,  where  the 
ration  appeared  to  be  distasteful,  the  hogs  rooted  out  some  of  the  feed. 
In  such  cases,  the  feeders  were  promptly  adjusted  to  allow  less  feed  in 
the  feeding  boxes.  It  was  impossible  to  keep  exact  record  of  the  feed  so 
wasted.  The  feeders  were  refilled  from  time  to  time  so  as  to  keep  feed 
constantly  before  the  hogs.  Care  was  taken  that  no  feed  was  moistened 
by  rain  and  that  no  feed  was  allowed  to  mold  or  spoil  in  the  feeders. 

The  slop  fed  to  Lot  9 in  the  third  trial  was  fed  at  6 :oo  a.  m.  and  4:30 
p.  m.,  in  a wooden  trough,  which  furnished  ample  room  for  all  of  the 
pigs  in  the  lot  to  eat  at  the  same  time.  The  feed  was  mixed  with  water 
to  make  a slop  that  would  pour  readily  from  a bucket. 

In  the  first  and  second  trials,  the  water  was  given  early  in  the  morn- 
ing and  late  in  the  afternoon.  In  the  third  trial,  the  water  was  given 
early  in  the  morning  in  quantities  sufficient  to  last  until  the  next  morning 
in  clean  concrete  troughs. 

DESCRIPTION  OF  HOGS 

The  hogs  used  in  the  first  trial  were  purchased  in  Warren  County, 
Indiana,  and  came  from  two  farms.  The  majority  were  well-bred  grade 
Duroc-Jersey  pigs  farrowed  in  the  spring  of  1917;  the  others  were  well- 
bred  grade  Poland  Chinas  of  practically  the  same  age.  Both  lots  were  in 
thrifty  condition.  Previous  to  purchase,  the  hogs  had  been  on  pasture, 
with  a light  grain  ration.  Upon  arrival  at  the  experimental  lots,  the  hogs 
were  vaccinated  and  fed  a light  ration  of  corn  and  middlings.  Previous 
to  placing  on  full  ration,  the  hogs  were  given  santonin  and  calomel  for 
removal  of  intestinal  worms.  The  hogs  were  accustomed  to  a full  feed  of 
shelled  corn,  middlings  and  tankage  previous  to  starting  on  experimental 
feed. 

The  hogs  used  in  the  second  trial  were  also  purchased  in  Warren 
County,  from  a half  dozen  farms  and  were  of  mixed  breeding;  all,  how- 
ever, were  thrifty,  well  grown  shoats  of  the  1917  spring  farrow.  This 
lot  of  hogs  was  treated  similarly  to  those  in  the  first  trial  previous  to 
being  placed  on  experimental  feed. 

The  hogs  in  the  third  trial  were  purchased  from  the  Purdue  Veterin- 
ary Department  and  originally  they  were  parts  of  two  car  loads  of  hogs 
bought  in  southern  Indiana.  The  Veterinary  Department  used  these  hogs 
for  the  purpose  of  testing  the  potency  of  anti-hog  cholera  serum.  When 
purchased  by  the  Animal  Husbandry  Department,  the  hogs  had  fully  re- 
covered from  the  effects  of  vaccination  and  had  been  on  full  feed  of 
corn  and  tankage  for  several  days.  In  quality  and  thrift,  these  hogs  were 
fair  but  not  as  good  as  the  hogs  used  in  the  first  and  second  trials. 

The  lots  of  hogs  in  all  the  trials  were  selected  with  the  view  of 
obtaining  as  much  uniformity  as  possible  in  regard  to  age,  weight,  sex, 
breeding  and  thrift. 

FEEDS 

The  different  by-product  feeds  used  in  these  trials,  are  doubtless  not 
familiar  to  the  great  majority  of  Corn  Belt  pork  producers.  Much  con- 
fusion and  lack  of  understanding  have  been  brought  about  by  the  care- 
less and  indiscriminate  use  of  the  correct  names  of  these  feeds.  Some- 
times the  same  name  is  applied  to  two  different  corn  by-products  which 


9 


are  quite  different  in  composition  and  feeding  value;  again,  two- or  more 
names  have  been  used  for  the  same  feed,  but  sold  by  different  firms.  The 
farmer  who  is  not  familiar  with  commercial  by-products  should  under- 
stand clearly  that  there  is  a difference  in  the  different  by-products,  not 
only  in  name  but  in  composition  and  feeding  value.  The  Indiana  Feeding 
Stuffs  Control  law  requires  that  all  commercial  feeds  offered  for  sale  in 
the  State  must  bear  tags  giving  the  registered  name,  the  guaranteed  an- 
alysis and  ingredients  of  the  feed.  An  inspection  of  these  tags  will  give 
any  prospective  buyer  valuable  information.  It  has  been  thought  best,  for 
a clearer  understanding,  to  give  a somewhat  concise  statement  as  to  the 
feeds  used  in  the  trials  reported. 

Corn  Feed  Meal. — “Corn  Feed  Meal  is  the  sifting  obtained  in  the 
manufacture  of  cracked  corn  and  table  meal  made  from  the  whole  grain.”1 

A more  recent  definition  for  corn  feed  meal  is  “Corn  Feed  Meal  is  a 
by-product  obtained  in  the  manufacture  of  cracked  corn,  with  or  with- 
out aspiration  products  added  to  the  siftings,  and  is  a by-product  obtained 
in  the  manufacture  of  table  meal  from  the  whole  grain  by  the  non-de- 
germinating  process.” 

Under  recent  ruling  of  the  Federal  Food  Administration,  corn  feed 
meal  No.  I would  be  classified  as  yellow  hominy  feed  from  which  part 
of  the  oil  had  been  extracted;  corn  feed  meal  No.  2 would  also  be  classed 
as  hominy  feed. 

In  these  trials,  three  different  corn  feed  meals  have  been  used.  Corn 
feed  meal  No.  1 is  a by-product  manufactured  as  follows:  in  the  prepara- 
tion of  corn  grain  for  grinding,  the  germs  were  removed  mechanically, 
some  oil  pressed  from  them  and  the  residue  returned  to  the  siftings ; this 
mixture  is  ground  and  sold  as  corn  feed  meal.  The  corn  feed  meal  No.  2 
was  manufactured  in  the  same  manner,  except  that  no  oil  was  extracted 
from  the  germs.  Corn  feed  meal  No.  3 was  the  by-product  or  siftings 
resulting  from  the  manufacture  of  cracked  corn. 

The  chemical  analyses  of  these  three  corn  feed  meals  are  given  in 
Table  I. 

Hominy  Feed  or  Meal. — -“Hominy  Feed,  Hominy  Meal,  or  Hominy 
Chop,  is  a kiln-dried  mixture  of  the  mill  run  bran  coating,  the  mill  run 
germ,  with  or  without  a partial  extraction  of  the  oil  and  a part  of  the 
starchy  portion  of  the  white  corn  kernel  obtained  in  the  manufacture  of 
hominy,  hominy  grits  and  corn  meal  by  the  degerminating  process.”  1 
This  feed  is  more  familiar  to  Indiana  hog  producers  than  other  corn  by- 
products, as  it  has  been  on  the  market  for  some  years  and  has  been  suc- 
cessfully used  by  feeders.  The  definition  of  this  feed  has  been  changed 
from  time  to  time  in  the  past. 

Urgent  demand  and  the  shortage  of  fats  and  oils  for  food  purposes 
have  greatly  increased  the  prices  of  these  products  and  have  caused  the 
manufacturers  of  corn  products  to  remove  all  the  fats  and  oils  possible 
from  the  corn.  At  the  present  time  hominy  mills  are  making  hominy 
feeds  of  three  different  types.  In  one  type,  the  mill-run  corn  germs,  mill- 
run  corn  bran  and  soft  meal  are  mixed  together,  ground  and  sold  as 

1 Definitions  of  feeding  stuffs  adopted  by  the  Association  of  Feed  Control  Officials  of  the 
United  States,  1915 

The  definition  of  this  feed  is  changing  from  time  to  time  as  the  processes  of  manu- 
facture change 


10 


hominy  feed.  In  a second  type,  the  corn  germs  are  removed  and  the  oil 
partially  extracted,  while  the  residue  is  returned  to  the  other  materials, 
then  ground  and  sold  as  hominy  feed.  In  the  third  type,  corn  germs  are 
removed  so  far  as  possible.  The  small  amount  of  corn  germ  remaining, 
the  corn  bran  and  the  soft  meal  are  then  ground  and  sold  as  hominy 
feed.  In  general,  this  class  of  hominy  feed  usually  contains  more  starch 
and  less  fat  and  protein  than  the  other  two. 

The  hominy  feed  used  in  the  work  herein  reported  was  of  the  third 
class  in  which  most  of  the  germ  has  been  removed. 

Corn  Germ  Meae. — “Corn  germ  meal  is  a product  in  the  manufac- 
ture of  starch,  glucose  and  other  corn  products  and  is  the  germ  layer 
from  which  a part  of  the  corn  oil  has  been  extracted.”  1 This  is  very 
frequently  termed  hominy  hearts  by  salesmen.  It  should  be  clearly  dis- 
tinguished from  corn  feed  meals  and  hominy  feed  since  it  is  an  entirely 
different  by-product.  Considerable  confusion  has  resulted  from  the  use 
of  different  names  such  as  corn  oil  cake,  corn  oil  cake  meal,  hominy 
hearts,  corn  germ  meal,  and  corn  oil  meal.  All  of  these  terms  are  for  ex- 
actly the  same  feed.  The  official  name  is  corn  germ  meal. 

Many  feeders  last  year  were  somewhat  puzzled  by  the  difference 
found  in  corn  germ  meals.  This  was  due  largely  to  the  fact  that  there 
are  two  general  classes  of  corn  germ  meals,  the  by-products  of  two  differ- 
ent manufacturing  methods.  In  the  manufacture  of  starch,  glucose,  and 
syrups,  the  corn  kernels  are  first  soaked  for  some  time  in  a very  weak 
sulphurous  acid  solution.  The  germs  are  then  easily  separated  by 
agitators.  The  germs  rise  to  the  surface  and  are  readily  removed.  These 
germs  are  then  repeatedly  washed,  pressed  to  extract  corn  oil,  dried  and 
ground.  The  resulting  substance  is  sold  as  corn  germ  meal. 

In  the  manufacture  of  corn  flour,  corn  meal  and  hominy  grits,  the 
corn  germs  are  removed  from  the  kernels  by  a purely  mechanical  process. 
These  germs  are  pressed  for  the  oil  content  either  at  the  factory  at  which 
they  are  removed  or  at  a separate  oil  factory.  As  a general  rule,  more  or 
less  heat  is  used  in  the  process  of  oil  extraction  in  addition  to  pressure. 
The  residue,  after  the  oil  is  extracted,  is  ground  and  sold  as  corn  germ 
meal,  or  may  be  used  in  the  manufacture  of  hominy  feed. 

In  this  bulletin  for  purposes  of  distinction,  the  corn  germ  meal  used 
as  a representative  of  the  class  of  corn  germ  meals  resulting  as  by- 
products from  the  manufacture  of  starch,  glucose  and  syrups,  is  termed 
starch  corn  germ  meal.  The  corn  germ  meal  used  as  a representative  of 
the  second  class  is  termed  hominy  corn  germ  meal.  These  definitions 
and  distinctions  have  been  kept  clearly  in  mind  in  the  discussion  of  the 
results.  The  reader  should  also  bear  this  fact  in  mind.  The  analyses  of 
the  corn  germ  meals  used  in  these  trials  are  given  in  Table  I. 

Parmo  Midds. — In  the  process  of  preparing  tin  plate  for  the  market, 
the  excess  of  palm  oil  on  the  plate  is  removed  by  scouring  with  a mixture 
of  wheat  middlings  and  ground  wheat  screenings.  After  the  maximum 
absorption  of  oil,  the  middlings  and  ground  wheat  screenings  are  so 
processed  that  no  deleterious  material  should  remain.  This  resulting  by- 
product of  the  tin  plate  mills  is  sold  under  the  name  of  “Palmo  Midds,” 
which  should  not  be  confused  with  Palmo  Mixed  Feed.  The  Palmo 
Midds  used  in  these  feeding  trials  was  obtained  directly  from  a tin  plate 


II 


mill.  At  the  same  time,  a corresponding  quantity  of  wheat  middlings 
and  screenings  was  secured  from  the  mill,  which  were  the  same  as  those 
used  in  the  preparation  of  Palmo  Midds.  The  chemical  analyses  of  the 
wheat  middlings  and  Palmo  Midds  as  determined  by  the  State  Chemist 
are  given  in  Table  I. 

COMMERCIAL  MIXED  HOG  FEEDS 

For  the  purpose  of  obtaining  authoritative  information  concerning 
the  relative  feeding  value  of  some  commercial  mixed  hog  feeds,  two 
rather  popular  hog  feeds  were  used.  Both  of  these  feeds  were  pur- 
chased on  the  open  market.  For  purposes  of  identification  in  this  bulle- 
tin, these  feeds  are  called  commercial  mixed  hog  feed  No.  i and  com- 
mercial mixed  hog  feed  No.  2.  The  former  was  labeled  with  official  tags, 
‘giving  the  manufacturer’s  guaranteed  analysis  showing  not  less  than  4.0 
per  cent,  crude  fat,  23  per  cent,  crude  protein  and  not  more  than  12  per 
cent,  crude  fibre,  and  stating  that  the  ingredients  consisted  of  wheat  mid- 
dlings, barley  flour,  flour  middlings,  Red  dog  flour,  linseed  oil  meal, 
alfalfa  meal  and  tankage.  This  feed  was  received  in  good  condition  and 
was  stored  in  a dry  place. 

The  feed  herein  called  commercial  mixed  hog  feed  No.  2 was  bought 
with  the  guaranteed  tag  analysis  of  not  less  than  4.0  per  cent,  crude  fat, 
18  per  cent,  crude  protein  and  not  more  than  14  per  cent,  crude  fibre.  The 
manufacturer  guaranteed  it  to  be  compounded  from  alfalfa  meal,  corn 
feed  meal,  corn  germ  meal,  corn  distillers’  dried  grains  and  solubles,  lin- 
seed oil  meal,  blood  flour,  palm  kernel  meals,  calcium  carbonate,  salt  and 
molasses.  It  was  received  in  good  condition  and  stored  in  a dry  place. 

The  chemical  analyses  of  the  different  feeds  used  during  the  trials 
appear  in  Table  I.  All  of  these. analyses  were  made  in  the  Department  of 
the  State  Chemist. 

Table  I. — Composition  of  Feeds 


Peed 

Moisture 
per  cent. 

Crude 

fat 

per  cent. 

Crude 
protein 
per  cent. 

Crude 
fibre 
per  cent. 

Crude 

ash 

per  cent. 

Nitrogen 
free 
extract 
per  cent. 

Corn  feed  meal  No.  1 

10.0 

6.2 

11.5 

4.2 

2.8 

65.3 

Corn  feed  meal  No.  2 

9.3 

6.4 

10.9 

4.6 

2.4 

66.4 

Corn  feed  meal  No.  3 

10.4 

3.4 

8.6 

2.8 

1.9 

72.9 

Hominy  feed 

9.1 

7.6 

11.2 

5.0 

2.7 

64.4 

Stareh  corn  germ  meal 

9.3 

10.1 

24.6 

8.6 

2.1 

45.3 

Hominy  corn  germ  meal 

4.6 

6.3 

18.5 

7.1 

7.3 

56.2 

Ground  corn  _ _ 

11.5 

4.1 

9.4 

2.0 

1.5 

71.5 

Palmo  Midds 

5.4 

10.1 

16.2 

7.4 

5.6 

55.3 

Wheat,  middlings 

8.5 

4.9 

16.5 

8.3 

5.4 

56.4 

Commercial  mixed  hog  feed 

No  1 

8.4 

6.0 

25.0 

9.0 

7.4 

44.2 

Commercial  mixed  hog  feed 

No.  2 

11.8 

4.4 

19.7 

4.4 

2.0 

57.7 

The  corn  used  in  the  first  trial  was  of  the  1916  crop  and  its  analysis 
is  given  in  Table  I.  In  the  second  trial,  old  corn  similar  to  that  of  the 
first  trial,  was  fed  for  approximately  two-thirds  of  the  65-day  feeding 


12 


period.  After  this  time,  corn  of  the  1917  crop  was  used.  The  corn  used 
in  the  third  trial  was  of  the  1917  crop.  All  of  the  corn  from  the  1917 
crop  was  but  fair  in  quality  and  rather  high  in  moisture.  No  chemical 
analysis  was  made  of  this  corn,  but  moisture  determinations  of  corn 
similar  to  that  of  the  1917  crop,  used  in  the  second  trial,  gave  moisture 
contents  varying  from  25  per  cent,  to  30  per  cent.  The  moisture  con- 
tent of  the  corn  used  in  the  third  trial  was,  as  a rule,  20  per  cent,  or 
slightly  less. 

High  grade  60  per  cent,  protein  tankage  was  used  throughout  the 
trials. 

PRICES  OF  FEEDS 

During  the  time  of  these  three  feeding  trials,  from  August,  1917  to 
June,  1918,  prices  of  all  feeds  were  very  erratic.  At  one  time,  ground 
corn  was  purchased  at  a price  equivalent  to  $2.20  per  bushel  and  at  an- 
other time  it  was  purchased  at  a price  equivalent  to  $1.15  per  bushel.  The 
cost  of  tankage  varied  from  $80.00  to  $105.00  per  ton.  The  by-products 
were  purchased  at  varying  prices,  determined  largely  by  current  prices  for 
corn,  the  supply  available  and  the  freight  charges.  The  two  commercial 
feeds  purchased  varied  considerably  in  price. 

All  financial  conclusions  have  been  omitted  in  reporting  these  trials 
because  of  wide  variations  in  feed  prices.  Unwarranted  applications  are 
frequently  made  where  financial  conclusions  are  given  in  presenting  the 
results  of  feeding  trials  when  prices  of  different  feeds  vary  in  different 
localities. 

The  important  factors  in  determining  the  value  of  a feeding  stuff 
in  such  trials  as  herein  reported  are  the  daily  feed  consumption,  the  feed 
required  per  100  pounds  of  gain,  the  rate  of  gains  and  the  finish  of  the 
animals,  and  if  these  be  clearly  presented  the  reader  may  readily  apply 
the  results  to  his  local  conditions  and  prices. 

PART  I 

CORN  FEED  MEALS  vs.  GROUND  CORN 

In  the  first  feeding  trial,  from  August  10  to  October  9,  1917,  10 
pigs  were  placed  in  each  lot.  After  receiving  the  preliminary  treatment 
already  described,  these  pigs  were  given  free  access  to  the  different  feeds 
in  self-feeders.  In  all  of  the  lots,  the  pigs  ate  the  corn  feed  meal  readily. 
In  the  case  of  corn  feed  meal  No.  3,  a portion  of  it  was  not  finely  ground, 
allowing  the  pigs  an  opportunity  to  root  some  cob  and  chaff  and 
larger  pieces  of  husks  of  corn  kernels  out  of  the  feeding  boxes.  This 
waste  was  very  small  when  weighed.  When  this  corn  feed  meal  was 
finely  ground,  the  pigs  ate  without  waste.  Some  difficulty  was  observed 
in  the  feeding  of  corn  feed  meal  No.  2,  due  to  the  somewhat  flaky 
nature  of  the  feed.  The  physical  condition  of  this  corn  feed  meal  caused 
the  self-feeders  to  clog  more  easily  than  with  the  other  corn  feed  meals 
or  ground  corn.  Care  was  taken,  however,  that  the  pigs  in  this  lot  had 
feed  at  all  times. 

Table  II  gives  the  result  of  the  first  trial. 


13 


Table  II. — Corn  Feed  Meals  vs.  Ground  Corn — August  io  to  October  9, 
1917 — 60  Days — 10  Hogs  per  Lot 


Ration 

Lot  1 

Lot  2 

Lot  3 

Lot  9 

Corn  feed 
meal  No.  1 
and  tankage 

Com  feed 
meal  No.  2 
and  tankage 

Corn  feed 
meal  No.  3 
and  tankage 

Ground  com 
and  tankage 

• 

Average  initial  weight 

99.6  lbs. 

99.7  lbs. 

99.2  lbs. 

99.3  lbs. 

Average  final  weight 

212.5  “ 

215.7  “ 

212.7  “ 

207.3  “ 

Average  daily  gain 

1.88  “ 

1.93  “ 

1.89  “ 

1.80  “ 

Average  daily  feed 

corn  feed  meal  or  corn 

7.63  “ 

7.22  “ 

7.63  “ 

7.11  “ 

tankage 

0.35  “ 

0.535  “ 

0.62  “ 

0.41  “ 

Feed  per  100  pounds  gain 

corn  feed  meal  or  corn 

405.4  “ 

373.5  “ 

403.5  “ 

395.1  “ 

tankage 

18.5  “ 

27.7  “ 

32.6  “ 

22.7  “ 

Total  feed 

423.9  “ 

401.2  “ 

436.1  “ 

417.8  “ 

It  will  be  noted  that  the  average  daily  gains  in  each  lot  were  very 
similar.  There  was  evidently  no  marked  difference  in  any  of  the  corn 
feed  meals  or  ground  corn  shown  by  the  rate  of  gain  in  the  hogs. 

The  hogs  in  Lot  1 consumed  an  average  daily  feed  of  7.98  pounds 
of  corn  feed  meal  and  tankage.  In  Lot  2,  the  average  daily  feed  con- 
sumption was  7.755  pounds,  in  Lot  3,  8.25  pounds  and  in  Lot  9,  7.52 
pounds.  Considering  the  size  of  the  hogs,  all  lots  consumed  large  quan- 
tities of  feed,  indicating  that  all  rations  were  palatable. 

When  the  economy  of  production  is  considered,  it  will  be  noted 
that  there  are  no  striking  differences  in  favor  of  any  particular  corn 
feed  meal  or  ground  corn.  Such  differences  as  do  appear  may  be  easily 
due  to  the  individuality  of  the  hogs  in  the  different  lots.  It  would  per- 
haps be  well  to  state  that  there  were  no  unthrifty  hogs  in  any  of  the  lots. 

It  will  be  noted,  however,  that  apparently  the  corn  feed  meal  possess- 
ing the  higher  percentage  of  protein  required  lesser  amounts  of  tankage. 

The  second  trial  was  conducted  from  November  6,  1917  to  January 
10,  1918,  a period  of  65  days.  Because  of  the  necessity  for  allowing 
ample  room  for  shelter,  seven  hogs  only  were  placed  in  each  lot.  It 
was  found  impossible  to  obtain  corn  feed  meal  No.  1 for  this  trial. 
Owing  to  the  supply  of  old  corn  being  exhausted  and  the  impossibility  of 
grinding  the  new  corn  crop  during  the  feeding  period,  corn  feed  meal  No. 
3 was  obtained  in  quantity  only  sufficient  to  feed  during  the  first  30  days 
of  the  feeding  period.  Corn  feed  meal  No.  2 was  fed  throughout  the 
period. 

The  hogs  were  given  preliminary  treatment  similar  to  that  used  in 
the  first  trials  and  were  again  given  their  feeds  in  self-feeders.  In  addi- 
tion to  the  large  feeders  in  the  open  lots,  small  self-feeders  were  placed 
inside  of  the  shelters  so  the  hogs  would  have  an  opportunity  to  eat,  no 
matter  how  bad  the  weather.  It  was  observed  that  during  the  65  days, 
which  included  many  stormy,  severe  days,  that  the  hogs  ate  practically 
altogether  at  the  large  feeders  in  the  open. 

Table  III  gives  the  results  of  the  second  trial. 


14 


Table;  III. — Corn  Feed  Meals  vs.  Ground  Corn — November  6,  1917  to 
January  10,  1918 — 65  Days — Seven  Hogs  per  Lot 


Ration 

Lot  2 

Lot  3 1 

Lot  9 / 

Corn  feed  meal 
No.  2 

and  tankage 

Corn  feed  meal 
No.  3 

and  tankage 



Ground  corn 
and  tankage 

Average  initial  weight 

129.4  lbs. 

130.4  lbs. 

129.1  lbs. 

Average  final  weight 

250.4  “ 

196.4  “ 

251.7  “ 

Average  daily  gain 

1.86  “ 

2.20  “ 

1.89  “ 

Average  daily  feed 

corn  feed  meal  or  corn 

8.78  “ 

9.99  “ 

9.09  “ 

tankage 

0.41  “ 

0.70  “ 

0.50  “ 

Feed  per  100  pounds  gain 

corn  feed  meal  or  corn 

471.5  “ 

454.0  “ 

482.0  “ 

tankage 

22.0  “ 

31.7  “ 

26.8  “ 

Total  feed 

493.5  “ 

485.7  “ 

508.8  “ 

1 This  lot  fed  30  days  only 


It  will  be  observed  that  the  daily  gains  in  Lots  2 and  9 are  very 
similar.  The  average  daily  gain  in  Lot  3 was  considerably  greater  than 
either,  but  it  must  be  remembered  that  this  is  for  30  days  only,  while  with 
the  other  two  lots,  the  gain  is  the  average  for  65  days. 

The  daily  feed  consumption  was  larger  in  all  lots  than  in  the  first 
trial.  A part  of  this  increased  consumption  may  be  attributed  to  the 
larger  size  of  the  hogs  in  the  second  trial  and  probably  the  balance  to  the 
increased  demands  for  food  occasioned  by  the  extremely  cold  weather. 

The  amounts  of  feeds  required  per  hundred  pounds  of  gain  in  all 
three  lots  are  so  nearly  equal  that  no  decided  advantage  can  be  given  to 
either  of  the  corn  feed  meals  or  ground  corn. 

In  summing  up  the  results,  it  may  be  stated  that  upon  the  basis  of 
two  trials,  the  corn  feed  mepls  appear  to  be  as  palatable  as  ground  corn. 
The  hogs  fed  corn  feed  meal  and  tankage  made  as  rapid  gains  as  when 
fed  ground  corn  and  tankage.  Pork  was  produced  at  as  low  a feed  cost 
with  corn  feed  meals  and  tankage  as  with  sound  mature  ground  corn 
and  tankage. 

PART  II 

HOMINY  FEED  vs.  GROUND  CORN 

From  1908  to  1911,  this  Station  conducted  seven  feeding  trials  with 
hogs,  in  which  hominy  feed  was  fed  in  comparison  with  corn  meal,  three 
trials  in  which  the  hominy  meal  was  supplemented  with  wheat  shorts, 
and  four  trials  where  the  hominy  feed  and  corn  meal  were  supple- 
mented with  tankage.  Basing  the  statements  upon  these  trials,  in  Bulle- 
tin No.  158,  “Hominy  Feed  for  Fattening  Hogs,”  the  authors  say, 
“Hominy  feed  produces  more  rapid  gains  on  hogs  than  does  corn  meal. 
Hominy  feed  produces  gains  on  less  grain  than  does  corn  meal.”  By 
taking  the  data  in  Bulletin  No.  158  as  a whole,  it  has  been  estimated  that 
hominy  feed  has  been  approximately  15  per  cent,  more  efficient  in  pro- 
ducing pork  than  corn  meal. 


i5 


In  the  beginning  of  the  feeding  trials  reported  in  this  bulletin,  it 
was  thought  best  to  conduct  additional  trials  since  it  was  known  that  in 
recent  years,  the  manufacture  of  hominy  feed  had  been  changed  in  some 
ways  and  that  in  many  factories,  corn  oil  was  being  extracted  from  the 
, germs. 

In  the  preliminary  study,  it  was  noted  that  the  crude  food  nutrients 
of  the  1917  hominy  feed  revealed  by  the  analysis  reported  by  the  State 
Chemist  were  different  from  those  of  the  hominy  feed  sold  in  1908  to 
1911.  The  following  comparisons  may  be  of  interest: 


Table:  IV. — Comparison  of  Crude  Food  Nutrients  in  Hominy  Feeds, 

1910-11  and  1917 


Moisture 
per  cent. 

Crude  fat 
per  cent. 

Crude  protein 
per  cent. 

Crude  fiber 
per  cent. 

Ash 

per  cent. 

Nitrogen 
free  extract 
per  cent. 

1910-11 

9.0 

8.2 

10.4 

3.8 

2.5 

66.1 

1917 

9.1 

7.5 

11.2 

5.0 

2.7 

64.4 

The  analysis  used  for  the  hominy  feed  in  1910-11  is  the  average  of 
44  official  samples  reported  by  the  State  Chemist.  The  analysis  of  the 
1917  hominy  feed  is  that  reported  by  the  State  Chemist  for  the  hominy 
feed  used  in  the  trials  reported  in  this  bulletin. 

It  may  be  noted  that  apparently  there  is  closer  milling  of  the  corn 
grain  at  this  time,  that  oil  has  been  removed,  and  in  general  the  feed 
contains  less  carbohydrates,  slightly  more  protein  and  more  crude  fiber. 

In  the  first  trial,  10  hogs  were  used  in  each  lot.  The  hogs  in  one  lot 
were  allowed  free  choice  of  hominy  feed  and  tankage  and  those  in  the 
other  lot  were  allowed  free  choice  of  ground  corn  and  tankage.  Both  lots 
apparently  relished  their  feed  and  there  was  practically  no  waste. 

In  the  second  trial,  seven  hogs  were  placed  in  each  lot.  These  hogs 
received  treatment  similar  to  those  in  the  preceding  trial  although  some 
extremely  cold  weather  was  experienced  during  this  trial. 

Table  V shows  the  results  of  the  two  trials. 


Table  V. — Hominy  Feed  and  Tankage  vs.  Ground  Corn  and  Tankage 


Ration 

Aug.  10-Oct.  9,  1917  / 

60  days — 10  hogs  peE  \)6t 

Nov.  6,  1917-Jan.  10,  1918 

6 5 days — 7 hogs  per  lot, 

Hominy  feed 
and  tankage 

Grouffd  corn 
and  tankage 

Hominy  feed 
and  tankage 

GrouncVccirn 
and  tankage 

Average  initial  weight 

99.2  lbs. 

99.3  lbs. 

130.0 

lbs. 

129.1 

lbs. 

Average  final  weight 

205.5  “ 

207.3  “ 

231.4 

“ 

251.7 

“ 

Average  daily  gain 

1.77  “ 

1.80  “ 

1.56 

44 

1.89 

“ 

Average  daily  feed 

hominy  feed  or  corn 

7.19  “ 

7.11  “ 

7.61 

44 

9.09 

M 

tankage 

0.41  “ 

0.41  “ 

0.47 

0.50 

M 

Feed  per  100  pounds  gain 

hominy  feed  or  corn 

405.8  “ 

395.1  “ 

488.0 

44 

482.0 

“ 

tankage 

22.9  “ 

22.7  “ 

30.0 

44 

26.8 

“ 

Total  feed 

428.7  “ 

417.8  “ 

518.0 

44 

508.8 

“ 

i6 


It  will  at  once  be  noted  that  contrary  to  experimental  feeding 
previously  cited,  the  hogs  receiving  hominy  feed  and  tankage  did  not 
make  as  rapid  gains  as  hogs  receiving  ground  corn  and  tankage.  There 
is  practically  no  difference  in  the  first  trial,  but  the  hogs  fed  hominy  feed 
in  the  second  trial  gained  approximately  17  per  cent,  more  slowly  than 
the  hogs  fed  ground  corn. 

There  is  no  difference  in  the  average  daily  consumption  of  feed  in  the 
first  trial  but  in  the  second,  the  hogs  fed  corn  consumed  daily  per  hog  1.51 
pounds  more  of  ground  corn  and  tankage  than  was  consumed  by  the  hogs 
fed  hominy  feed. 

In  the  amount  of  feed  required  for  each  100  pounds  of  gain,  slight 
differences  in  favor  of  ground  corn  appear  in  both  trials.  These  are, 
however,  too  slight  to  cause  any  decided  difference  for  ground  mature 
corn  over  hominy  feed,  in  so  far  as  economy  of  gains  is  concerned. 

From  the  results  of  these  trials,  therefore,  and  in  view  of  the 
changed  methods  of  manufacture  now  in  practice,  it  can  no  longer  be 
said  that  hominy  feed  is  approximately  15  per  cent,  more  efficient  in 
producing  pork  than  corn  meal.  It  is  doubful  whether  the  hominy  feed 
produced  at  the  present  time  is  any  more  efficient  than  corn. 

PART  III 

CORN  GERM  MEALS 

Corn  Gsrm  Me:als  AlonK. — Since  a considerable  number  of  hog 
growers  were  endeavoring  to  feed  the  corn  germ  meals  as  the  sole  con- 
centrate in  the  rations  and  some  firms  selling  this  product  had  been  ad- 
vising such  method,  it  was  deemed  desirable  to  feed  the  corn  germ  meals 
alone  in  comparison  with  a standard  ration  of  ground  corn  and  tankage. 


Fig:.  1.  Cot  4 — fed  Starch  Corn  Germ  Meal  alone  65  days,  average  daily  gain  per  head, 
0.03  pound. 


1 7 


In  the  first  trial  three  lots  of  io  hogs  each  were  placed  on  rations  of 
starch  corn  germ  meal,  hominy  corn  germ  meal  and  ground  corn  and 
tankage.  All  feeds  were  fed  dry  in  self-feeders.  This  work  was  re- 
peated in  the  second  trial  with  seven  hogs  in  each  lot. 

Considerable  difficulty  was  experienced  in  preventing  waste  of  feed 
with  the  starch  corn  germ  meal  lots.  The  hogs  were,  apparently,  searching 
for  something  more  palatable  and  persisted  in  rooting  feed  out  of  the 
feeders.  Less  difficulty  was  found  with  the  hominy  corn  germ  meal  in 
this  respect.  Practically  no  feed  was  wasted  in  the  ground  corn  and  tank- 


rig.  2.  Lot  9 — fed  Corn  and  Tankage  65  days — average  daily  gain  per  head,  1.89  pounds 

age  lots.  In  the  lots  fed  the  hominy  corn  germ  meal  it  was  observed 
that  the  majority  of  the  hogs  were  more  laxative  than  in  the  other  lots  but 
no  persistent  diarrhoea  was  observed.  In  both  trials,  the  hogs  in  all  lots 
had  access  to  salt  and  charcoal.  Considerably  larger  quantities  of  the  salt 
and  charcoal  were  consumed  by  the  hogs  receiving  the  corn  germ  meals 
than  by  those  receiving  ground  corn  and  tankage. 

Table  VI  shows  the  results  of  the  two  trials. 


i8 


Table  VI. — Corn  Germ  Meals  Alone  vs.  Ground  Corn  and  Tankage 


First  trial 

Aug.  10-Oct.  9,  1917 — 60  days 

10  hogs  per  lot 

Second  trial 

Nov.  6,  1917-Jan.  10,  1918 — 65  d^ys 

7 hogs  per  lot  \ / 

Ration 

Lot  4 

Lot  7 

Lo\A 

Lot  4 1 

Lot  7 

lAt  9 

• 

Starch 
corn  germ 
meal 

Hominy 

corn  germ 
meal 

Ground 
corn  and 
tankage 

Starch 
corn  germ 
meal 

Hominy 

corn  germ 
meal  ' 

Ground 
corn  and 
tankage 

Average  initial 
weight 

99.9  lbs. 

99.2  lbs. 

99.3  lbs. 

132.5  lbs. 

131.7  lbs. 

129.1  lbs. 

Average  final 
weight 

116.8  “ 

189.2  “ 

207.3  “ 

134.3  “ 

211.9  “ 

251.7  “ 

Average  daily 
gain 

0.28  “ 

1.50  “ 

1.80  “ 

0.03  “ 

1.23  “ 

1.89  “ 

Average  daily 
feed 

corn  germ  meal 
ground  corn 
tankage 

2.49  “ 

6.29  “ 

7.11  “ 
0.41  “ 

2.56  “ 

6.54  “ 

9.09  “ 
0.50  “ 

Feed  per  100 
pounds  gain 
corn  germ  meal 
ground  corn 
tankage 

884.6  “ 

419.2  “ 

■1—1 1'- 
U5  <m' 

eo 

9090.0  “ 

530.0  “ 

482.0  “ 
26.8  “ 

Total  feed 

884.6  “ 

419.2  “ 

417.8  “ 

9090.0  “ 

530.0  “ 

508.8  “ 

1 Six  pigs  in  this  lot 


There  are  apparently,  striking  differences  in  the  feeding  value  of  the 
starch  and  hominy  corn  germ  meals  when  fed  dry  as  the  sole  ration.  The 
hogs  would  not  consume  sufficient  starch  corn  germ  meal  to  more  than 
maintain  their  body  weight.  In  Tot  4 in  the  second  trial,  the  hogs  be- 
came very  weak  and  two  hogs  became  helpless.  One  of  these  was  re- 
moved early  in  the  trial;  hence  the  results  are  given  for  but  six  hogs. 
The  other  hog  was  removed  towards  the  end  of  the  trial.  Both  of  these 
hogs  began  immediate  recovery  when  corn  and  tankage  were  fed.  While 
fair  gains,  at  an  economical  rate  of  production,  were  secured  with  the 
hominy  corn  germ  ‘meal,  neither  the  rate  of  gain,  feed  consumption  nor 
economy  of  gain  in  the  two  lots  receiving  hominy  corn  germ  meal  were  as 
good  as  in  the  two  lots  of  hogs  fed  ground  corn  and  tankage. 

Upon  the  basis  of  these  two  trials,  it  may  be  stated : 

1 —  that  starch  corn  germ  meal  when  fed  dry  and  as  a sole  feed  is 
not  palatable  to  hogs ; 

2 —  that  hominy  corn  germ  meal  is  much  more  palatable  as  a sole 
feed,  fed  dry,  than  starch  corn  germ  meal ; 

3 —  that  neither  of  the  corn  germ  meals  when  fed  dry  and  as  a sole 
feed  is  as  efficient  as  ground  corn  and  tankage  in  producing  pork. 

Combination  of  Starch  Corn  Germ  Meat  and  Corn. — As  in- 
formation concerning  the  use  of  corn  germ  meals  and  corn  fed  in  com- 
bination was  desired,  one  Jot  of  10  hogs  was  offered  a free  choice  of 
starch  corn  germ  meal  and  ground  corn  in  comparison  with  a lot  of  10 
hogs  offered  ground  corn  and  tankage  in  the  first  trial. 


19 


In  the  second  trial,  two  lots  of  seven  hogs  each  were  offered  varying 
mixtures  of  starch  corn  germ  meal  and  ground  corn  in  comparison  with 
a lot  of  seven  hogs  receiving  ground  corn  and  tankage.  Lot  5 was  fed  a 
mixture  of  equal  parts  by  weight  of  starch  corn  germ  meal  and  ground 
corn  and  the  other  lot  received  a mixture  of  one  part  starch  corn  germ 
meal  and  three  parts  ground  corn. 

Table  VII  gives  the  results  of  these  trials. 


Table:  VII. — Starch  Corn  Germ  Meal  and  Ground  Corn  vs.  Ground  Corn 

and  Tankage 


First  trial 

Aug.  10-Oct.  9,  1917 

60  days — 10  hogs  per  lot 

Second  trial 

Nov.  6,  1917- Jan  10,  1918 

65  days — 7 hogs  per  lot 

Ration 

Lot  5 

Lot  </ 

Lot  5 

Lot  6 

Lot  9 

Starch 
corn  germ 
meal  and 
ground  corn 

V 

Ground  corn 
and  tankage 

Mixture 

1 part 
starch  corn 
germ  meal, 

1 part 

ground  corn 

Mixture 

1 part 
starch  corn 
germ  meal, 

3 parts 
ground  corn 

v 

Ground  corn 
and  tankage 

Average  initial  weight 

100.2  lbs. 

99.3  lbs. 

130.7  lbs. 

131.0  lbs. 

129.1  lbs. 

Average  final  weight 

199.3  “ 

207.3  “ 

179.6  “ 

218.6  “ 

251.7  “ 

Average  daily  gain 

1.65  “ 

1.80  “ 

0.75  “ 

1.35  “ 

1.89  “ 

Average  daily  feed 
corn  germ  meal 
ground  corn 
tankage 

0.92  “ 
6.44  “ 

7.11  “ 
0.41  “ 

2.79  “ 
2.79  “ 

1.99  “ 
5.95  “ 

9.09  “ 
0.50  “ 

Feed  per  100  pounds  gain 
corn  germ  meal 
ground  corn 
tankage 

55.6  “ 
390.1  “ 

395.1  “ 
22.7  “ 

371.0  “ 
371.0  “ 

148.0  “ 

442.0  “ 

482.0  “ 
26.8  “ 

Total  feed 

445.7  “ 

417.8  “ 

742.0  “ 

590.0  “ 

508.8  “ 

It  is  evident  that  starch  corn  germ  meal  and  ground  corn  were  not 
as  efficient  as  ground  corn  and  tankage  where  the  hogs  were  allowed 
free  choice.  The  hogs  in  Lot  5 of  the  first  trial  showed  a decided  prefer- 
ence for  the  ground  corn.  This  lot  of  hogs  matured  into  fat  chunks 
while  the  hogs  in  Lot  9 could  have  been  profitably  fed  longer  than  the 
60-day  period.  As  a supplement  for  ground  corn,  in  this  trial,  tankage 
was  two  and  one-half  times  as  efficient  as  starch  corn  germ  meal.  The 
hogs  receiving  ground  corn  and  starch  corn  germ  meal  made  approximate- 
ly 8.0  per  cent,  slower  gains.  Approximately  28  pounds  more  of  feed 
were  required  to  make  100  pounds  of  pork  in  Lot  5 than  in  Lot  9. 

In  the  second  trial,  it  appears  that  the  larger  the  proportion  of 
ground  corn  in  the  mixture,  the  more  rapid  were  the  gains,  the  larger  the 
feed  consumption  and  the  more  economical  the  production  of  pork. 

In  these  trials,  there  again  appeared  the  evidence  of  lack  of  paya- 
bility of  the  starch  corn  germ  meal.  It  is  also  apparent  that  the  starch 
corn  germ  meal  was  not  a satisfactory  substitute  for  tankage  in  supple- 
menting ground  corn. 


20 


The  Addition  oe  Ground  Corn  to  Hominy  Corn  Germ  Meat. — 
It  will  be  observed  by  referring  to  Table  VI  in  the  first  trial,  that  Lot  7, 
receiving  hominy  corn  germ  meal  made  very  economical  gains  but  the 
gains  were  much  slower  than  with  Lot  9 fed  the  standard  ration  of 
ground  corn  and  tankage.  In  the  second  trial,  a lot  of  seven  hogs  was 
offered  a mixture  of  three  parts  hominy  corn  germ  meal  and  one  part 
ground  corn  in  comparison  with  Lot  7,  receiving  hominy  corn  germ  meal 
alone  and  Lot  9,  receiving  ground  corn  and  tankage. 

Table  VIII  gives  the  results  of  this  trial. 


Table  VIII. — Addition  of  Ground  Corn  to  Hominy  Corn  Germ  Meal 
November  6,  1917  to  January  10,  1918 — 65  Days — Seven  Hogs  pervLot 


Lot  7 

Lot  10 

Lot  9 

Ration 

Hominy  corn 
germ  meal 
alone 

Mixture  3 parts 
hominy  com 
germ  meal, 

1 part 

ground  corn 

Ground  corn 
and  tankage 

Average  initial  weight 

131.7  lbs. 

131.0  lbs. 

129.1  lbs. 

Average  final  weight 

211.9  “ 

227.4  “ 

251.7  “ 

Average  daily  gain 

1.23  “ 

1.48  “ 

1.89  “ 

Average  daily  feed 
corn  germ  meal 
ground  corn 
tankage 

6.M  “ 

6.88  “ 

2.29  “ 

9.09  “ 

0.50  “ 

Feed  per  100  pounds  gain 
corn  germ  meal 
ground  corn 
tankage 

530.0  “ 

464.0  “ 

154.0  “ 

482.0  “ 

26.8  “ 

Total  feed 

530.0  “ 

618.0  “ 

508.8  “ 

The  object  of  this  trial  was  to  endeavor  to  increase  the  rate  of  gain 
if  possible  by  the  addition  of  corn  to  hominy  corn  germ  meal. 

The  addition  of  one  part  ground  corn  to  the  hominy  corn  germ  meal 
in  the  second  trial  resulted  in  an  additional  increase  of  0.25  pound  daily 
above  the  daily  gain  of  the  hogs  in  the  lot  receiving  hominy  corn  germ 
meal  alone.  The  hogs  in  Lot  10  consumed  2.29  pounds  of  ground  corn 
in  addition  to  6.88  pounds  of  hominy  corn  germ  meal,  'daily  per  head. 
The  hogs  in  Lot  7 did  not  consume  even  as  much  corn  germ  meal  as 
those  in  Lot  10. 

It  will  also  be  noted  that  the  hogs  in  Lot  10  did  not  make  as  rapid 
gains,  consume  as  much  feed  nor  make  as  economical  gains  as  the  hogs 
in  Lot  9,  receiving  ground  corn  and  tankage. 

Apparently  the  addition  of  ground  corn  made  the  mixture  more 
palatable  to  the  hogs  than  hominy  corn  germ  meal  alone. 


21 


Starch  Corn  Germ  Meae  as  a Substitute  eor  Corn. — To  obtain 
information  concerning  whether  corn  germ  meal  could  be  substituted  for 
corn  in  a ration  of  ground  corn  and  tankage,  a lot  of  io  hogs  was  fed 
starch  corn  germ  meal  and  tankage,  allowing  free  choice  of  either  feed. 
Considerable  digestive  disturbances  were  manifested  by  numerous  cases 
of  diarrhoea  at  the  beginning  of  the  trial.  After  a few  weeks,  however, 
there  were  very  few  cases  of  diarrhoea  observed.  During  the  entire  feed- 
ing period,  however,  an  excessive  excretion  of  urine  was  observed.  All 
of  the  hogs  in  the  lot  were  affected.  At  the  close  of  the  trial,-  the  hogs 
receiving  this  ration  were  apparently  in  excellent  physical  condition  and 
had  a very  noticeable  sleek,  luxuriant  growth  of  hair. 

Table  IX  shows  the  results  of  the  substitution  of  starch  corn  germ 
meal  for  corn. 


Tabee  IX. — Starch  Corn  Germ  Meal  as  Substitute  for  Corn — August 
io-October  9,  1917 — 60  Days — 10  Hogs  per  Dot 


Ration 

Lot  6 

Lot  9 ^ 

Starch  corn  germ 
meal  and  tankage 

Ground  corn  and 
tankage 

Average  initial  weight 

99.7  lbs. 

90.3  lbs. 

Average  final  weight 

140.2  “ 

207.3  “ 

Average  daily  gain 

0.675  “ 

1.80  “ 

Average  daily  teed 

corn  germ  meal 

2.21  “ 

ground  corn 

7.11  “ 

tankage 

1.70  “ 

0.41  “ 

Feed  per  100  pounds  gain 

corn  germ  meal 

327.4  “ 

ground  corn 

395.1  “ 

tankage 

251.5  “ 

22.7  “ 

Total  feed 

578.9  “ 

417.8  “ 

The  results  as  shown  in  this  comparison  indicate  that  starch  corn 
germ  meal  is  not  a satisfactory  substitute  for  corn  when  supplemented 
with  tankage. 

Corn  Germ  Meaes  as  Partial  Substitutes  eor  Tankage. — It  has 
already  been  shown  in  the  results  reported  in  Table  VII  of  this  bulletin 
that  corn  germ  meals  were  not  efficient  as  sole  substitutes  for  tankage  in 
supplementing  ground  corn  in  rations  for  fattening  hogs.  The  increasing 
demand  for  tankage  is  causing  very  high  prices  for  this  feed  and  if  some 
cheaper  feed  such  as  corn  germ  meal  could  be  mixed  with  tankage  and 
efficiently  supplement  corn  or  other  starchy  feeds,  considerable  saving  in 
the  cost  of  production  of  pork  might  be  effected.  The  question  as  to 
whether  these  corn  germ  meals  could  at  least  be  used  as  partial  substitutes 
for  tankage  is  often  asked.  To  obtain  information  on  this  question,  two 


22 


lots  of  seven  hogs  each  were  fed  in  the  second  trial,  November  6,  1917 
to  January  10,  1918,  one  receiving  ground  corn  and  a mixture  of  starch 
corn  germ  meal  and  tankage  and  the  other  receiving  ground  corn  and 
tankage. 

To  obtain  additional  information  on  this  question,  five  lots  of  seven 
hogs  each  were  fed  in  the  third  trial  reported  in  this  bulletin.  In  this 
trial,  Lot  1 was  offered  ground  corn  and  a mixture  of  one  part  starch 
corn  germ  meal  and  one  part  tankage;  Lot  2 was  offered  ground  corn 
and  a mixture  of  three  parts  starch  corn  germ  meal  and  one  part  tankage ; 
Lot  3 was  offered  ground  corn  and  a mixture  of  three  parts  hominy  corn 
germ  meal  and  one  part  tankage ; Lot  9 was  allowed  free  access  to  ground 
corn  in  a self-feeder  and  fed  twice  daily  a mixture  of  three  parts  starch 
corn  germ  meal  and  one  part  tankage  in  the  form  of  a slop ; Lot  6 was 
offered  ground  corn  and  tankage. 

In  feeding  the  slop  mixture  to  the  hogs  in  Lot  9,  the  intention  at  all 
times,  was  to  offer  all  that  the  hogs  would  consume.  The  appetites  of  the 
hogs  for  the  slop  varied  from  time  to  time  and  the  amount  fed  was  cor- 
respondingly varied.  At  the  beginning  of  the  feeding  period,  the 
hogs  were  very  greedy  for  the  slop  but  after  approximately  10  days,  their 
consumption  of  the  slop  decreased  very  materially.  Shortly  before  the 
close  of  the  trial,  the  daily  consumption  again  increased  to  some  extent. 

One  pig  in  the  lot  receiving  the  slop  mixture  developed  enteritis  after 
being  in  the  lot  about  two  weeks,  and  died ; therefore  the  results  for  this 
lot  are  calculated  for  six  hogs  only. 

Table  X shows  the  results  of  the  use  of  corn  germ  meals  as  partial 
substitutes  for  tankage. 


Table  X. — Corn  Germ  Meals  as  Partial  Substitutes  for  Tankage 

Second  Trial— November  6,  1917  to  January  10,  1918—  Third  Trial— March  27  to  May  26,  1918—60  Days- 
65  Days — 7 Hogs  per  Lot  7 Hogs  per  Lot 


23 


£5 

O 


to 

,0 

* 

co 

TJJ 

1© 

02 

i-H 

£ <w 
^ o 
o 


£ £ tan  jg 

5 » a 

o ”«>  00  o §-2 

5*  US 


Hstpi 

02 

jQ 

3 

10  02 

cq  ti  fi 

§ h » © Sd S 

0 

T— 1 

02 

02  rtn 

id 

CO 

, 1 

WHO 

O SeoJs  0 ® -2 

02 

rH 

CSI 

3 C3  « 

r,  S3  a 


c « 

o ft 

g » a,  <2  q ft  q 

s-  ft  o a 

Ofl  » 


C <u 

oft  S e3  <*> 
« m t2  'S  & a 

•»—»  Qg  ^ tlX)  rH  S 

G S ft  * G 

2 w i-1  ® g 553  «3 

£2 

Oft  H 


o rfH  rti 

o 10  10 
no‘6 


02  ai  Cft 
cd  ir-  <N 
co 


<M  lO  lO 
Ot^M 
CO 


02  t'-  02 
OO  OO  OQ 
CO 


OOO 
lO  r-H  H 
©COCO 

-"T1 


G a» 

i~  bt) 

O 03 

n 

h 

Oft 


8 8 

02  o 


(h  Jj  rl  fH 

O ft  _ P 03  <32 

o -Jj  -g  J3  ^ ft  b£ 

'O  -q  £ too  5 
g S a5d«fl 
oSH® o 

t-  ft  o q 

Oft  H 


0010  10 

O <£>  o 

s 


© 

bfl 

C3 

© 

<1 


B 

S 

bo 

>» 


© 

© _ 
*H  fl 

jsS 


03 

© © 
bJC 


03  r 7 


bJQ 

C3 

ft 

© 


^ < < 


J 


1 Six  pigs  per  lot 


24 


It  will  be  observed  in  the  second  trial  that  the  hogs  fed  a mixture  of 
starch  corn  germ  meal  and  tankage  as  the  supplement  for  ground  corn 
gained  more  rapidly  than  the  hogs  fed  tankage  alone  as  the  supplement. 
The  daily  consumption  of  feed  is  also  in  favor  of  the  hogs  in  this  lot.  In 
economy  of  production,  however,  the  ground  corn  and  tankage  ration 
produced  pork  with  a considerable  less  expenditure  of  feed. 

Upon  studying  the  results  of  the  third  trial,  it  will  be  noted  that 
where  the  hogs  were  fed  mixtures  of  starch  corn  germ  meal  and  tankage, 
either  dry  or  in  slop,  the  rapidity  of  gains,  the  daily  consumption  of 
feeds  and  the  economy  of  production  are  in  favor  of  the  hogs  fed  tank- 
age as  the  sole  supplement.  Apparently  the  more  starch  corn  germ  meal 
fed  in  the  mixture,  the  less  efficient  was  the  mixture  as  a supplement 
when  compared  with  tankage  alone. 

The  hominy  corn  germ  meal  proved  to  be  an  excellent  partial  sub- 
stitute for  tankage.  The  hogs  fed  the  mixture  of  three  parts  hominy 
corn  germ  meal  and  one  part  tankage  as  the  supplement  made  slightly 
more  rapid  gains  with  an  expenditure  of  less  feed  per  ioo  pounds  of  gain 
than  hogs  fed  tankage  as  the  sole  supplement.  In  this  connection,  it  is 
interesting  to  note  that  the  hogs  in  Lot  3 consumed  less  feed  daily 
than  those  in  Lots  1,  2 and  6 but  made  as  much  or  more  gain  at  a less 
expenditure  of  feed  than  any  of  the  lots. 

The  hogs  fed  a mixture  of  three  parts  starch  corn  germ  meal  and 
one  part  tankage  dry,  in  a self-feeder,  as  the  supplement  made  more 
rapid  gains,  consumed  much  more  feed  daily  but  made  gains  slightly  less 
economically  than  the  hogs  fed  the  same  mixture  in  a slop  twice  daily  as 
the  supplement.  The  larger  gains  of  the  hogs  in  Lot  2 would  ordinarily 
make  them  more  profitable  than  the  hogs  in  Lot  9.  It  will  be  observed 
that  the  hogs  fed  the  mixture  of  starch  corn  germ  meal  and  tankage, 
either  in  slop  or  dry,  consumed  practically  the  same  amount  of  the  mix- 
ture for  each  100  pounds  of  gain.  For  some  unknown  reason,  the  hogs 
fed  ground  corn  and  tankage  consumed  an  excessive  amount  of  tankage 
but  no  bad  effects  from  such  a high  consumption  of  tankage  were  observed. 

PART  IV 

PALMO  MIDDS 

Three  lots  of  seven  hogs  each  were  fed  in  the  third  trial  from  March 
27  to  May  26,  1918,  for  the  purpose  of  comparing  the  feeding  value  of 
Palmo  Midds  and  standard  wheat  middlings,  and  also  comparing  the 
value  of  these  two  feeds  as  partial  substitutes  for  tankage.  Throughout 
the  feeding  period,  no  differences  were  observed  in  the  health  or  thrift 
of  the  hogs  in  any  of  the  lots.  Both  rations  were  fed  dry  in  self-feeders, 
the  Palmo  Midds  being  mixed  in  the  proportion  of  three  parts  to  one 
part  of  tankage  in  one  ration  and  the  wheat  middlings  mixed  in  the  pro- 
portion of  three  parts  to  one  of  tankage  in  the  other,  before  they  were 
placed  in  the  feeders. 

In  Table  XI  appear  the  results  of  this  comparison. 


25 


Table  XI. — Palmo  Midds — March  27  to  May  26,  1918 — 60  Day: 


Third  Trial — 7 Hogs  per  Lot 


wi 

Lot  4 

Lot  5 

Lot  6 

Ration 

Ground  corn 
plus  mixture 

3 parts 
wheat 
middlings 
and  1 part 
tankage 

Ground  corn 
plus  mixture 

3 parts 

Palmo  Midds 

and  1 part 
tankage 

Ground  corn 
plus  tankage 

Average  initial  weight 

95.0  lbs. 

95.9  lbs. 

95.6  lbs. 

Average  final  weight 

190*1  “ 

206.1  “ 

211.4  “ 

Average  daily  gain 

1.59  “ 

1.84  “ 

1.93  “ 

Average  daily  feed 

ground  corn 

5.36  “ 

7.37  “ 

7.05  “ 

wheat  middlings 

1.40  “ 

Palmo  Midds 

1.35  “ 

tankage 

0.47  “ 

0.45  “ 

1.45  “ 

Peed  per  100  pounds  gain 

ground  corn 

338.0  “ 

401.0  “ 

365.0  “ 

wheat  middlings 

88.0  “ 

Palmo  Midds 

73.0  “ 

tankage 

29.0  “ 

24.0  “ 

75.0  “ 

Total  feed 

455.0  “ 

498.0  “ 

440.0  “ 

It  may  be  noted  that  the  hogs  fed  Palmo  Midds  made  greater  gains 
than  the  hogs  fed  the  standard  middlings  but  not  as  much  as  the  hogs  re- 
ceiving tankage  as  sole  supplement.  While  the  consumption  of  the  mix- 
ture of  Palmo  Midds  and  tankage  by  the  hogs  in  Lot  5 was  practically 
the  same  as  the  consumption  of  standard  middlings  and  tankage  in  Lot 
4,  the  average  daily  consumption  of  corn  was  2.01  pounds  more  im  Lot  5. 
This  lot  of  hogs  also  consumed  more  corn  daily  than  the  hogs  in  Lot  6 
fed  tankage  as  sole  supplement.  To  produce  100  pounds  of  gain  in  Lot  5 
58  pounds  more  feed  were  required  than  in  Lot  6 and  43  pounds  more 
feed  than  in  Lot  4.  Because  of  this  larger  feed  requirement  per  ioo 
pounds  of  gain,  the  hogs  in  Lot  5 would  not  ordinarily  return  as  much 
profit  as  the  hogs  in  Lot  6.  However,  because  of  the  difference  in 
rapidity  of  gains  the  hogs  fed  Palmo  Midds  should  return  slightly  larger 
profit  than  the  hogs  fed  standard  middlings. 

Upon  the  basis  of  this  work,  Palmo  Midds  are,  apparently,  slightly 
superior  to  standard  wheat  middlings. 

PART  V 

COMMERCIAL  MIXED  HOG  FEEDS 

The  demand  by  many  farmers  for  information  on  mixed  hog  feeds 
and  the  inquiries  constantly  received  for  experimental  data  upon  the 
relative  feeding  value  of  commercial  mixed  hog  feeds  as  compared  with 
rations  such  as  corn  and  tankage,  led  to  the  feeding  of  two  of  the  more 
commonly  used  commercial  mixed  hog  feeds  designated  as  commercial 
mixed  hog  feeds  Nos.  1 and  2 for  the  purpose  of  identification  in  the  third 
trial.  The  trial  was  started  March  27  and  extended  to  May  26,  1918  or  a 


26 


period  of  60  days.  Three  lots  of  seven  hogs  each  were  fed.  The  two 
commercial  mixed  hog  feeds  were  fed  alone,  dry  and  in  self-feeders,  and 
the  ground  corn  and  tankage  were  fed  dry  in  separate  compartments  of 
the  self-feeder. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  feeding  period,  the  daily  consumption  of 
feeds  as  indicated  by  the  necessary  refilling  of  the  feeders,  was  approxi- 
mately the  same  in  all  three  lots.  After  the  first  io  days,  however,  the 
hogs  receiving  the  feed  herein  called  commercial  mixed  hog  feed  No.  i 
showed  a decrease  in  the  relative  consumption  of  feed  as  compared  with 
the  other  two  lots.  This  decreased  consumption . was  observed  during 
the  remainder  of  the  feeding  period.  After  20  days,  the  hogs  fed  ground 
corn  and  tankage  consumed  slightly  more  feed  daily  than  the  hogs  re- 
ceiving the  feed  herein  called  commercial  mixed  hog  feed  No.  2.  This 
difference  in  feed  consumption  was  maintained  to  the  end  of  the  feeding 
period.  However,  the  difference  in  these  two  lots  was  not  as  noticeable 
as  with  the  hogs  fed  commercial  mixed  hog  feed  No.  1. 

In  both  of  the  lots  fed  the  commercial  mixed  hog  feeds,  considerable 
laxativeness  was  observed.  This  was  especially  noticeable  with  the  hogs 
fed  commercial  mixed  hog  feed  No.  2. 

Table  XII  shows  the  results  of  the  work  with  commercial  mixed 
hog  feeds. 


Table  XII. — Commercial  Mixed  Hog  Feeds  vs.  Ground  Corn  and  Tank- 


Ration 

Lot  7 

Lot  8 

lpA 

Commercial 
mixed  hog 
feed  No.  1 

Commercial 
mixed  hog 
feed  No.  2 

Ground  corn 
plus  tankage 

Average  initial  weight 

94.7  lbs. 

95.7  lbs. 

95.6  lbs. 

Average  final  weight 

176.0  “ 

195.3  “ 

211.4  “ 

Average  daily  gain 

1.36  “ 

1.66  “ 

1.93  “ 

Average  daily  feed 

ground  corn 

7.05  “ 

tankage 

1.45  “ 

commercial  feed 

6.16  “ 

8.00  “ 

Feed  per  100  pounds  gain 

ground  corn 

365.0  “ 

tankage 

75.0  “ 

commercial  feed 

455.0  “ 

482.0  “ 

Total  feed 

455.0  “ 

482.0  “ 

440.0  “ 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  hogs  fed  ground  corn  and  tankage  gained 
42  per  cent,  more  rapidly  than  the  hogs  fed  commercial  mixed  hog  feed 
No.  1 and  16.2  per  cent,  more  rapidly  than  those  fed  commercial  mixed 
hog  feed  No.  2.  The  daily  consumption  of  feed  was  greater  in  the  lot 
receiving  ground  corn  and  tankage.  The  hogs  in  Lot  6 consumed  daily 
per  head  0.5  pound  more  feed  than  those  in  Lot  8 and  2.34  pounds  more 
than  those  in  Lot  7.  The  feed  required  per  100  pounds  of  gain  was  365 
pounds  of  ground  corn  and  75  pounds  of  tankage,  a total  of  440  pounds 
in  Lot  6;  482  pounds  commercial  mixed  hog  feed  No.  2 in  Lot  8 and  455 
pounds  of  commercial  mixed  hog  feed  No.  1 in  Lot  7. 


QulAoma. 

0 


BBIYEBSITY  5F  fllDWS  U3JUHY 


30.1 

■>lb 

PURDUE  UNIVERSITY 

..JUL  131G 

Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


BULLETIN  No.  220 
September,  1918 


CATTLE  FEEDING 
XIV 

WINTER  STEER  FEEDING 

1917-1918 


Part  I.  Comparison  of  Rations  with  Different  Amounts  of  Corn  and 
No  Corn  for  Fattening  Two  Year  Old  Steers 
Part  II.  Corn  Silage  vs.  Corn  and  Soybean  Silage  for  Fattening  Two 
Year  Old  Steers 

Part  III.  Value  of  Cottonseed  Meal  in  Rations  Containing  Corn  Silage 
or  Corn  and  Soybean  Silage  for  Fattening  Two  Year  Old 
Steers 

'4 


Published  by  the  Station: 
LAFAYETTE,  INDIANA 
U.  S.  A. 


PURDUE  UNIVERSITY  AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 


BOARD  OF  CONTROL 
Joseph  D.  Olives,  President,  South  Bend 


Fay  S.  Chandler, Indianapolis 

Charles  Downing  Greenfield 

John  A.  Hillenbrand Batesville 

Cyrus  M.  Hobbs Bridgeport 


Winthrop  E.  Stone,  A.  M.,  Ph.  D. 


Warren  T.  McCray Kentland 

James  W.  Noel Indianapolis 

Andrew  E.  Reynolds Crawfordsville 

William  V.  Stuart LaFayette 


.President  of  the  University 


ADVISORY  COMMITTEE 
(Under  Legislative  Act  of  1909) 

John  G.  Brown,  Monon D.  B.  Johnson,  Mooresville 

State  Live  Stock  Association  State  Dairy  Association 

U.  R.  Fishel,  Hope D.  F.  Maish,  Frankfort  

State  Poultry  Fanciers'  Association  State  Corn  Growers'  Association 

F.  J.  Heacock,  Salem Indiana  Horticultural  Society 


ADMINISTRATION 
Charles  G.  Woodbury,  M.  S.,  Director 


Harry  J.  Reed Assistant  to  the  Director 

Nellie  Tracy Administrative  Assistant 

Mary  K,  Bloom . Bookkeeper 


AGRICULTURAL  EXTENSION 
George  I.  Christie,  B.  S.  A.,  Superintendent 
Thomas  A.  Coleman  . State  County  Agent  Leader 

George  M.  Frier,  B.  S.  A Associate  in 

Short  Courses  and  Exhibits 
Mabel  L.  Harlan. .Ass’t  in  Agricultural  Extension 

ANIMAL  HUSBANDRY 
John  H.  Skinner,  B.  S.,  Chief 

Claude  M.  Vestal,  B.  S 

Associate  in  Animal  Husbandry 

George  A.  Branaman,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Animal  Husbandry 

Herbert  E.  McCartney,  B.  S.  A 

Ass’t  in  Animal  Husbandry  Extension 

BOTANY 

Herbert  S.  Jackson,  A.  B.,  Chief 

George  N.  Hoffer,  M.  S Associate  in  Botany 

Luna  E.  Allison,  B.  S, Assistant  in  Botany 

Edwin  B.  Mains,  Ph.  D Assistant  in  Botany 

DAIRY  HUSBANDRY 
Ollie  E.  Reed,  M.  S.,  Chief 

Howard  W.  Gregory,  B.  S 

Associate  in  Dairy  Manufactures 

George  Spitzer,  Ph.  G..  B.  S 

Associate  in  Dairy  Chemistry 

Turner  H.  Broughton,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Creamery  Inspection 

William  F.  Epple,  Ph.  G 

Assistant  in  Dairy  Chemistry 

Hubert  W.  Fleisher,  B.  S.  A 

Assistant  in  Creamery  Inspection 

ENTOMOLOGY 
James  Troop,  M.  S..  Chief 

FARM  MECHANICS 

William  Aitkenhead,  M.  E.,  M.  A 

Specialist  in  Farm  Mechanics 

HORTICULTURE 

Laurenz  Greene,  M.  S.  A.,  Chief 
Joseph  Oskamp,  B.  S.,  Associate  in  Pomology 

Walter  A.  Huelson,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Horticulture 

NUTRITION 

Ralph  H.  Carr,  Ph.  D 

Associate  in  Nutrition  Chemistry 

POULTRY  HUSBANDRY 
Allen  G.  Philips,  B.  S.  A.,  Chief 

Dwight  C.  Kennard,  Ph.  C.,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Husbandry 


SOILS  AND  CROPS 
Alfred  T.  Wiancko  B.  S.  A.,  Chief 

Martin  L.  Fisher,  M.  S 

Assistant  Chief  in  Soils  and  Crops 

Samuel  D.  Conner,  M.  S , 

Associate  Chemist  in  Soils  and  Crops 

Clinton  O.  Cromer,  B.  S Associate  in  Crops 

Sadocie  C.  Jones.  M.  S Associate  in  Soils 

Ernest  N.  Fergus,  M.  Sc 

Assistant  in  Soils  and  Crops 

STATE  CHEMIST 

Edward  G.  Proulx,  M.  S.1 State  Chemist 

Reuben  O.  Bitler,  B.  S.2....Deputy  State  Chemist 

Margaret  Briggs,  B.  S Deputy  State  Chemist 

Paul  B.  Curtis,  B.  S.2 Deputy  State  Chemist 

Omar  W.  Ford,  A.  B.2 Deputy  State  Chemist 

Herman  J.  Nimitz.  B.  S.2.. Deputy  State  Chemist 
J.  Howard  Roop,  B.  S.2..~ Deput"  State  Chemist 

Samuel  F.  Thornton,  B.  S.2 \ 

Deputy  State  Chemist 

Otis  S.  Roberts,  B.  S.2 

Chief  Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

Glen  G.  Carter,  B.  S.2 

Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

Benjamn  F.  Catherwood  2 

Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

Wlliam  B.  Tiedt  

Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

VETERINARY  SCIENCE 
Robert  A.  Craig,  D.  V.  M.,  Chief 
David  B.  Clark,  D.  M.  C... Associate  Veterinarian 

Lawrence  C.  Kigin,  D.  V.  M 

Associate  Veterinarian 

George  N.  Roberts,  D.  V.  M 

Associate  Veterinarian 

Rex  A.  Whiting,  D.  V.  M 

Associate  in  Animal  Pathology 
Frank  I,  Cason,  B.  S...Ass’t  in  Serum  Production 

Leo  P.  Doyle,  B.  S Ass’t  in  Animal  Pathology 

Leslie  R.  George,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Animal  Pathology 
Fred  L.  Walkey,  D.  V.  M Ass’t  Veterinarian 

DETAILED  BY  U.  S.  DEPARTMENT  OF 
AGRICULTURE 

Cereal  and  Forage  Crop  Insect  Investigations 
John  J.  Davis,  B.  S.,  Entomological 
Assistant  in  Charge 

John  M.  Aldrich,  Ph.  D.,  Entomological  Assistant 

Herman  J.  Hart,  B.  S Scientific  Assistant 

Wesley  O.  Hollister,  B.  S... Scientific  Assistant 

Dean  A.  Ricker.  B.  S Scientific  Assistant 

Chester  F.  Turner,  B.  S Scientific  Assistant 

Seed  Testing 

Anna  M.  Lute,  M.  A Seed  Analyst 


1 In  charge  of  Fertilizer  and  Feeding  Stuff  Control 

2 Connected  with  Fertilizer  and  Feeding  Stuff  Control 


WINTER  STEER  FEEDING 

1917-1918 


J.  II.  Skinner  C.  G.  Starr 

SUMMARY 

PART  I 

COMPARISON  OF  RATIONS  WITH  DIFFERENT  AMOUNTS  OF 
CORN  AND  NO  CORN  FOR  FATTENING 
TWO  YEAR  OLD  STEERS 

The  addition  of  a moderate  amount  of  corn,  10.73  pounds  daily  per 
steer,  to  the  basal  ration  of  corn  silage,  clover  hay  and  cottonseed  meal, 
increased  the  average  daily  gain  0.74  pound  per  steer.  In  120  days, 
this  increased  rate  of  gain  due  to  the  feeding  of  the  corn,  amounted  to 
88  pounds  per  steer. 

The  addition  of  a small  amount  of  corn,  5.42  pounds  daily  per  steer, 
to  the  basal  ration  of  corn  silage,  clover  hay  and  cottonseed  -meal,  in- 
creased the  average  daily  gains  0.21  pound  or  24.6  pounds  per  steer  for 
the  entire  feeding  period. 

The  addition  of  corn  to  the  basal  ration  during  the  last  40  days  of 
the  feeding  period,  increased  the  average  daily  gain  0.11  pound  or  12.7 
pounds  per  steer  for  the  entire  feeding  period. 

The  addition  of  corn  to  the  basal  ration  during  the  last  40  days  of 
the  feeding  period,  increased  the  average  daily  gain  per  steer  during 
the  last  month  of  the  feeding  period  0.88  pound. 

Where  no  corn  was  fed  in  the  ration,  the  increased  average  daily 
consumption  of  silage  was  15.97  pounds  per  steer,  more  than  the  amount 
consumed  by  the  steers  in  the  lot  receiving  a medium  feed  of  corn. 

The  feeding  of  one  half  ration  of  corn  only  increased  the  silage  con- 
sumption 7.30  pounds  daily  per  steer. 

Where  no  corn  was  fed  until  the  last  40  days  the  average  daily  con- 
sumption of  silage  was  increased  9.07  pounds  per  steer. 

The  cattle  receiving  the  basal  ration  of  corn  silage,  clover  hay  and 
cottonseed  meal  produced  beef  at  a cost  of  $19.88  per  hundred  pounds. 
The  necessary  selling  price  to  break  even  on  these  cattle,  was  $11.70  per 
hundred  pounds.  The  cattle  were  valued  at  $14.55  in  the  lot  and  re- 
turned a profit  of  $35-55,  not  including  pork. 

The  cattle  receiving  corn  during  the  last  40  days  in  addition  to  the 
basal  ration,  made  gains  at  a cost  of  $21.79  per  hundred  pounds.  The 
necessary  selling  price  for  this  lot  was  $12.11  per  hundred  pounds,  while 
they  were  valued  at  the  close  of  the  experiment  at  $14.85.  Each  steer 
returned  a profit  of  $34.62,  not  including  pork. 

The  cattle  receiving  a small  amount  of  corn  throughout  the  feeding 
period  in  addition  to  the  basal  ration  produced  gains  at  a cost  of  $22.12 
per  hundred.  Their  necessary  selling  price  was  $12.26  while  they  were 
valued  at  $14.85.  The  profit  per  steer  not  including  pork  was  $32.88. 


4 


The  cost  per  hundred  pounds  of  gain  with  cattle  receiving  the  larg- 
est amount  of  corn  in  addition  to  the  basal  ration  was  $20.43  J the  neces- 
sary selling  price  was  $12.36;  the  actual  valuation  was  $15.35  and  the 
profit  per  steer,  not  including  pork,  was  $39.85. 

Valuing  the  pork  produced  at  $17.50  per  hundred  pounds,  the  average 
steer  receiving  the  basal  ration  returned  a total  profit  of  $37.35 ; the 
average  steer  receiving  corn  the  last  40  days,  returned  a total  profit  of 
$37.79;  the  average  steer  receiving  a small  amount  of  corn  continuously 
returned  a total  profit  of  $37.46;  the  average  steer  receiving  the  largest 
amount  of  corn  returned  a total  profit  of  $47.24. 

PART  II 

CORN  SILAGE  VS.  CORN  AND  SOYBEAN  SILAGE  FOR 
FATTENING  TWO  YEAR  OLD  STEERS 

The  average  daily  gain  of  the  cattle  fed  corn  and  soybean  silage 
in  addition  to  corn,  cottonseed  meal  and  clover  hay  was  0.1  pound  lower 
than  cattle  receiving  straight  corn  silage  in  addition  to  the  same  basal 
ration. 

Cattle  receiving  corn  and  soybean  silage  in  addition  to  corn  and 
clover  hay  made  0.13  pound  more  rapid  daily  gains  than  cattle  receiving 
corn  silage  in  addition  to  corn  and  clover  hay. 

There  was  practically  no  difference  in  the  average  daily  feed  con- 
sumption of  the  cattle  receiving  corn  silage  or  corn  and  soybean  silage. 
When  cattle  received  cottonseed  meal,  slightly  more  feed  was  consumed 
by  the  cattle  fed  corn  and  soybean  silage.  Where  no  cottonseed  meal  was 
fed,  the  cattle  fed  corn  silage  consumed  slightly  more  feed. 

The  total  profits  per  steer  in  the  lots  fed  corn  silage  were  $47.24  and 
$35.34  respectively.  In  the  lots  receiving  corn  and  soybean  silage,  the 
average  total  profits  were  $42.77  and  $33.73  respectively. 

On  the  basis  of  one  year’s  trial  but  slight  difference  was  found  in  the 
relative  feeding  value,  pound  for  pound  of  corn  silage  and  corn  and  soy- 
bean silage. 

PART  III 

VALUE  OF  COTTONSEED  MEAL  IN  RATIONS  CONTAINING 
CORN  SILAGE  OR  CORN  AND  SOYBEAN  SILAGE  FOR 
FATTENING  TWO  YEAR  OLD  STEERS 

The  addition  of  cottonseed  meal  to  a ration  of  corn,  corn  silage  and 
clover  hay,  produced  an  increased  average  daily  gain  of  0.61  pound.  In 
the  120-day  feeding  period,  this  increase  amounted  to  72.6  pounds  per 
steer. 

The  addition  of  cottonseed  meal  to  a ration  of  corn,  corn  and  soy- 
bean silage  and  clover  hay,  produced  an  increased  average  daily  gain 
of  0.38  pound  or  a total  increase  of  46.3  . pounds  per  steer. 

The  addition  of  cottonseed  meal  increased  the  total  feed  consump- 
tion in  both  rations.  At  no  time  would  the  cattle  not  receiving  cottonseed 
meal,  consume  the  same  amount  of  feed,  either  concentrates  or  roughage, 
as  was  consumed  by  the  cattle  receiving  cottonseed  meal. 


D 


When  cottonseed  meal  was  added  to  a ration  of  corn,  corn  silage 
and  clover  hay,  the  cost  of  gains  per  hundred  pounds  was  decreased 
$3.31  or  3.3  cents  per  pound.  The  difference  in  the  valuation  of  the 
cattle  at  the  end  of  the  feeding  period  was  70  cents  per  hundred  pounds 
in  favor  of  the  cattle  fed  cottonseed  meal.  The  decreased  cost  of  gains 
and  the  increased  selling  price  due  to  the  addition  of  the  cottonseed  meal, 
caused  a difference  in  total  profit  of  $11.90  per  steer  in  favor  of  the 
cattle  fed  cottonseed  meal. 

When  cottonseed  meal  was  added  to  a ration  of  corn,  corn  and  soy 
bean  silage  and  clover  hay,  the  cost  of  producing  beef  was  reduced  $0.65 
per  hundred  pounds.  The  better  finish  of  the  cattle  fed  cottonseed  meal 
added  $0.90  per  hundred  pounds  to  the  valuation.  The  total  profit  per 
steer  in  the  lot  receiving  cottonseed  meal  in  addition  to  corn,  corn  and 
soybean  silage  and  clover  hay  was  $9.04  more  than  in  the  lot  receiving 
no  cottonseed  meal. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  cattle  feeding  trials  conducted  during  the  winter  of  1917-18 
by  the  Purdue  University  Agricultural  Experiment  Station,  were  under 
exceptional  economic  conditions.  The  cattle  were  purchased  at  the  highest 
price  ever  paid  for  feeding  cattle  by  this  institution.  The  corn  over  the 
major  portion  of  the  Corn  Belt  was  of  poor  quality  and  also  high  priced. 
During  the  larger  part  of  the  feeding  period,  economic  conditions  occa- 
sioned by  the  war  and  its  influences,  apparently  precluded  any  profit  in 
feeding.  However,  during  the  last  four  or  five  weeks  of  the  period, 
market  conditions  changed,  prices  for  good  cattle  increased  and  as  a 
result,  more  profit  per  steer  was  made  than  ever  before  in  the  history 
of  14  years  of  cattle  feeding  at  this  station. 

OBJECT 

The  objects  of  the  trials  reported  in  this  bulletin  were:  1 — to  obtain 
additional  information  concerning  the  relative  value  of  rations  containing 
different  amounts  of  corn,  corn  fed  during  the  last  period  of  the  trials  only 
and,  rations  without  corn ; 2 — the  relative  feeding  value  of  corn  silage  and 
corn  and  soybean  silage ; and  3 — the  value  of  cottonseed  meal  in  rations 
containing  large  amounts  of  corn  silage  or  corn  and  soybean  silage  fed  to 
fattening  two  year  old  steers. 

PLAN 

Seventy  good  two  year  old  feeding  steers  were  divided  into  seven 
lots  of  10  each.  The  cattle  were  divided  as  evenly  as  possible  in  respect  to 
weight,  size,  condition,  quality  and  thrift.  The  following  rations  were  fed : 

Lot.  1.  Cottonseed  meal,  corn  silage,  and  clover  hay;  shelled  corn 
last  40  days. 

Lot  2.  Cottonseed  meal,  corn  silage  and  clover  hay. 

Lot  3.  Cottonseed  meal,  corn  silage,  clover  hay,  and  one-half  feed 
of  shelled  corn  based  on  amount  consumed  in  Lot  4. 

Lot  4.  Cottonseed  meal,  corn  silage,  clover  hay  and  shelled  corn. 

Lot  5.  Cottonseed  meal,  corn  and  soybean  silage,  clover  hay  and 
shelled  corn. 

Lot  6.  Corn  and  soybean  silage,  clover  hay  and  shelled  corn. 

Lot  7.  Corn  silage,  clover  hay  and  shelled  corn. 


6 


The  cottonseed  meal  was  fed  at  the  rate  of  2.5  pounds  of  meal  daily 
per  1000  pounds  of  live  weight.  The  corn  in  Tot  3 was  regulated  by 
the  amount  fed  in  Tot  4,  one-half  of  the  amount  consumed  by  Tot  4, 
being  the  daily  ration  of  Tot  3. 

SHELTER,  FEED  LOTS  AND  WATER  SUPPLY 

Each  lot  of  10  steers  occupied  similar  quarters,  which  consisted  of 
an  uncovered  concreted  lot  20  by  28  feet  and  an  open  shed  16  by  28  feet 
on  the  west.  The  sheds  were  kept  as  well  bedded  as  possible.  Owing 
to  the  severe  winter,  with  large  amounts  of  ice  and  snow,  the  spring  thaw 
caused  the  open  lots  to  become  very  sloppy.  At  all  times,  however,  the 
cattle  had  dry  beds  in  the  sheds. 

The  cattle  were  fed  under  cover.  Water  was  supplied  in  galvanized 
iron  troughs  adjacent  to  the  open  lots,  care  being  taken  to  keep  the  water 
fresh  in  these  troughs.  No  method  of  heating  was  used  but  the  ice  ac- 
cumulating in  the  troughs  was  removed  regularly  twice  daily.  The  cattle 
had  water  before  them  at  all  times. 

WEIGHTS 

Each  animal  was  weighed  for  three  consecutive  days  at  the  begin- 
ning and  end  of  the  trial  and  every  30  days  during  the  trial.  The  aver- 
ages of  the  three  weights  at  the  beginning  and  end  of  the  feeding  period 
were  taken  as  the  initial  and  final  weights  respectively.  Each  lot  was 
also  weighed  as  a group  every  10  days.  The  weights  were  taken  at  9 :oo 
a.  m.  without  change  in  feed  or  water. 

The  identity  of  each  steer  was  known  by  a numbered  brass  tag  on  a 
strap  fastened  around  the  neck.  The  identity  of  the  hogs  was  known 
by  numbered  aluminum  ear  tags. 

METHODS  OF  FEEDING 

The  method  of  feeding  in  all  lots  was  practically  the  same.  In  lots 
3,  4 and  5,  the  corn  with  the  cottonseed  meal  sprinkled  over  it  was  fed 
the  first  thing  in  the  morning  and  evening  at  approximately  6 :oo  a.  m. 
and  4 130  p.  m.  The  silage  was  placed  in  the  troughs  after  the  corn  had 
been  consumed.  In  Tots  6 and  7 the  corn  was  fed  first.  In  Tots  1 and  2, 
the  cottonseed  meal  was  sprinkled  over  the  silage  when  fed.  In  Tots  3, 
4 and  5,  cottonseed  meal  was  sprinkled  over  the  shelled  corn.  The  hay 
was  fed  once  daily,  being  placed  in  the  hay  mangers  in  the  morning. 

The  amount  of  silage  fed  in  all  lots  was  governed  by  the  appetites 
of  the  cattle.  The  intention  was  to  furnish  all  that  the  cattle  would  con- 
sume within  two  hours  after  being  placed  in  the  troughs.  The  amount 
of  hay  was  determined  by  the  need  of  the  cattle  for  dry  roughage  and 
their  appetite  for  the  hay.  Only  enough  was  fed  so  that  the  cattle  would 
consume  the  hay  without  waste  or  leaving  any  appreciable  amount. 

Salt  was  given  to  all  lots  at  as  frequent  intervals  as  was  required. 


7 


DESCRIPTION  OF  THE  CATTLE 

The  cattle  in  these  trials  were  selected  from  a large  drove  which  had 
been  pastured  for  several  months  previous  in  Jasper  County,  Indiana. 
As  selected,  they  were  very  uniform  in  weight,  age,  quality,  condition  and 
thrift.  Practically  all  were  of  Shorthorn  breeding. 

These  cattle  were  received  at  the  experimental  feeding  lots  early 
in  November.  Until  the  beginning  of  the  experiment  they  were  main- 
tained on  a light  feed  of  corn  silage  and  alfalfa  hay.  No  attempt  was 
made  to  make  them  gain,  the  intention  being  to  maintain  the  cattle  in 
thrifty  condition. 

METHOD  OF  VALUING  CATTLE 

In  order  that  a fair  valuation  could  be  placed  on  the  cattle  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  feeding  period  and  to  eliminate  any  effect  upon  the  finan- 
cial statements  due  to  fluctuations  of  markets,  the  cattle  were  valued  on  the 
basis  of  the  Chicago  market  by  Messrs.  John  T.  Alexander  and  Mat 
Welch,  of  Chicago.  To  this  valuation  15  cents  per  hundred  pounds  was 
added  to  cover  cost  of  shipping  from  Chicago  to  LaFayette,  making  the 
initial  valuation  $10.15  per  hundred  pounds. 

At  the  close  of  the  feeding  period,  the  different  lots  of  cattle  were 
valued  by  Messrs.  John  T.  Alexander  and  Fred  Bowra,  of  Chicago.  These 
values  were  again  on  the  basis  of  the  Chicago  market.  From  these  values, 
75  cents  per  hundred  pounds  was  deducted  to  cover  the  cost  of  shipping, 
selling  and  shrinkage  in  placing  the  cattle  upon  the  Chicago  market.  All 
financial  statements  are  based  upon  these  initial  and  final  valuations. 

QUALITY  AND  PRICES  OF  FEEDS 

The  corn  used  in  these  trials  was  but  slightly  above  the  average  qual- 
ity of  corn  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Experiment  Station.  At  all  times  there 
were  considerable  rotten  and  discolored  kernels  with  a moisture  content 
rarely  below  25  per  cent.  Owing  to  the  absence  of  any  standard  market 
for  this  corn,  a fixed  price  of  $1.12  per  bushel  is  used  in  the  financial 
statements.  This  was  slightly  higher  than  the  prices  paid  for  the  or- 
dinary run  of  corn  received  by  the  LaFayette  elevators  during  the  feeding 
period. 

The  cottonseed  meal  was  of  choice  grade,  guaranteed  to  contain  41 
per  cent,  crude  protein  and  cost  $53.50  per  ton  f.  o.  b.,  LaFayette.  The 
clover  hay  was  of  good  quality  and  is  figured  in  at  $25.00  per  ton. 

The  corn  silage  and  corn  and  soybean  silage  were  made  from  corn 
and  soybeans  on  the  Purdue  Farm.  The  corn  was  thought  to  be  too 
green  for  the  best  silage  although  the  quality  of  the  silage  proved  to  be 
excellent.  The  yield  of  the  corn  was  approximately  30  bushels  per  acre. 
Both  silages  are  valued  at  $7.50  per  ton  in  the  financial  statements. 

HOGS 

At  the  beginning  of  the  trials,  due  to  a very  great  demand  and  an 
acute  scarcity  of  good  stock  hogs,  it  was  impossible  to  secure  the  number 
desired — 10  hogs  per  lot.  Six  hogs  were  placed  in  Lots  4,  5,  6,  and  7; 
three  hogs  in  Lot  3 ; and  two  hogs  in  Lots  1 and  2.  Thirty  days  before 
the  end  of  the  trials,  four  more  hogs  were  placed  in  Lot  1.  The  average 


8 


weight  of  the  hogs  was  less  than  ioo  pounds.  Due  to  this  light  weight 
and  the  extreme  winter,  a few  of  the  hogs  did  not  gain  as  they^should. 

Extra  corn  was  fed  to  the  hogs  in  each  lot  according  to  appetites. 
In  addition,  three  hogs  in  Lots  4,  5,  6,  and  7 received  a small  quantity  of 
a mixture  of  wheat  shorts  and  tankage,  once  daily. 

METHOD  OF  STARTING  CATTLE  ON  FEED 

At  the  beginning  of  the  feeding  period,  the  silage  was  increased  as 
rapidly  as  the  cattle  would  consume  the  added  amount.  The  cottonseed 
meal  was  fed  at  the  rate  of  one  pound  per  steer  daily  and  gradually  in- 
creased, until  at  the  end  of  10  days,  the  cattle  were  consuming  2.5  pounds 
daily  per  1,000  pounds  of  live  weight.  The  shelled  corn  was  fed  at  the 
rate  of  2.0  pounds  daily  per  steer  in  Lot  3 and  4.0  pounds  in  the  other  lots 
receiving  corn.  In  14  days,  Lot  3 was  receiving  5.0  pounds  of  corn  daily 
per  steer  and  Lots  4,  5,  o,  and  7 were  receiving  10  pounds  of  corn  daily 
per  head.  This  amount  of  corn  remained  constant  in  Lots  4 and  5 while 
an  attempt  was  made  to  increase  the  amount  in  Lots  6 and  7 without  seri- 
ously decreasing  the  consumption  of  silage.  Efforts  to  increase  the  aver- 
age daily  consumption  above  11  pounds  in  these  two  lots  during  the  first 
30  days,  resulted  in  the  cattle  refusing  to  consume  the  desired  amount  of 
silage,  therefore  the  amount  of  corn  was  held  to  11  pounds  daily  per  steer. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  second  month,  the  amount  of  corn  in  Lot  3 
was  raised  to  6.0  pounds  daily  per  steer,  in  Lots  4 and  5 to  12  pounds,  and 
in  Lots  6 and  7 to  13  pounds.  No  further  increase  in  the  amount  of 
corn  was  made  in  Lots  3,  4,  and  5.  Any  attempt  to  raise  the  amount  of 
corn  fed  to  Lots  6 and  7 to  equal  the  amount  of  concentrates,  both  corn 
and  cottonseed  meal,  in  Lots  4 and  5,  resulted  in  the  cattle  refusing  con- 
siderable amounts  of  silage. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  feeding  period,  the  alfalfa  hay  was  abruptly 
replaced  by  clover  hay  without  any  bad  effect  upon  the  cattle. 

PART  I 

COMPARISON  OF  RATIONS  WITH  DIFFERENT  AMOUNTS  OF 
CORN  AND  NO  CORN  FOR  FATTENING 
TWO  YEAR  OLD  STEERS 

The  high  prices  for  corn  and  the  possible  utilization  by  fattening  cat- 
tle of  large  quantities  of  ordinary  unmarketable  farm  roughages  such  as 
corn  stalks  and  leaves,  when  made  into  silage  occasioned  the  beginning 
of  a new  series  of  feeding  trials  last  year.  The  object  of  this  series  was 
to  obtain  information  as  to  the  relative  influence  of  considerable  quan- 
tities of  corn,  small  quantities  of  corn  and  no  corn  at  all  in  the  rations  of 
fattening  cattle.  The  increased  demand  for  corn  for  human  consumption 
and  for  pork  production  due  to  war  influences  and  demands  caused  a 
still  larger  interest  this  year  in  the  finishing  of  cattle  for  the  market  with 
little  or  no  corn.  The  trials  reported  herein  are  the  second  of  the  series. 
The  results  of  the  first  trials  are  reported  in  Bulletin  No.  206. 

Eor  two  years  previous  to  the  trials  reported,  attempts  were  made  to 
save  corn  by  feeding  no  corn  the  first  month  and  slightly  increasing 


9 


amounts  in  the  succeeding  months  of  the  feeding  period.  It  not  having 
proved  profitable,  this  particular  line  of  work  was  replaced  in  1917-18 
by  a lot  of  cattle  (Lot  1)  to  which  no  corn  was  fed  until  the  last  40  days, 
when  a large  amount  of  corn  was  introduced.  In  addition,  three  other 
lots  were  fed.  Lot  2 received  no  corn  at  any  time,  receiving  only  the 
ration  of  cottonseed  meal,  corn  silage  and  clover  hay.  Lot  3 received  a 
small  amount  of  corn  daily,  one-half  amount  fed  in  Lot  4,  while  Lot  4 
received,  what  is  for  convenience,  called  a medium  ration  of  corn  through- 
out the  feeding  period  in  addition  to  the  basal  ration.  The  ration  of  corn 
in  Lot  4,  although  not  large,  is  considered  a full  feed  of  corn. 

The  average  daily  feed  consumption  by  months  and  the  average  daily 
consumption  for  the  entire  period  is  shown  in  Table  I. 


Table;  I. — Average  Amount  of  Feed  Consumed  Daily  per  Head  by  Fat- 
tening Steers.  December  13,  1917  to  April  12,  1918  (120  days) 


Ration 

Lot 

1 

Lot 

2 

Lot 

3 

Lot 

4 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  silage, 
clover  hay, 

shelled  corn 
last  40  days 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  silage, 
clover  hay, 

no  corn 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  silage, 
clover  hay, 

one-half  feed 
shelled  corn 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  silage, 
clover  hay, 

medium  feed 
shelled  corn 

First  month 

shelled  corn 

4.25 

lbs. 

8.50 

lbs. 

cottonseed  meal 

2.33 

lbs. 

2.33 

lbs. 

2.30 

“ 

2.35 

“ 

corn  silage 

55.03 

“ 

55.03 

“ 

48.67 

“ 

41.77 

“ 

clover  hay 

. 4.63 

“ 

4.72 

“ 

4.85 

tt 

4.85 

“ 

Second  month 

shelled  corn 

5.36 

“ 

10.41 

“ 

cottonseed  meal 

2.83 

“ 

2.83 

“ 

2.91 

“ 

2.92 

“ 

corn  silage 

55.05 

“ 

56.58 

“ 

49.17 

“ 

41.02 

“ 

clover  hay 

3.85 

« 

4.17 

“ 

4.93 

“ 

4.70 

“ 

Third  month 

shelled  corn 

2.81 

“ 

6.07 

“ 

12.00 

“ 

cottonseed  meal 

2.95 

“ 

2.98 

tt 

3.02 

“ 

3.10 

“ 

corn  silage 

50.20 

“ 

55.50 

“ 

45.48 

tt 

37.67 

“ 

clover  hay 

3.58 

“ 

3.85 

“ 

4.20 

tt 

3,72 

tt 

Fourth  month 

shelled  corn 

13.79 

“ 

6.0 

it 

12.00 

“ 

cottonseed  meal 

3.07 

“ 

3.07 

“ 

3.11 

tt 

. 3.23 

“ 

corn  silage 

29.15 

<« 

49.92 

“ 

39.06 

tt 

32.72 

“ 

clover  hay 

3.92 

“ 

3.93 

“ 

4.44 

“ 

3.93 

tt 

Average  daily  feed  for 

entire  period 

shelled  corn 

4.15 

lbs. 

5.42 

lbs. 

10.73 

lbs. 

cottonseed  meal 

2.80 

“ 

2.80 

lbs. 

2.83 

“ 

2.90 

“ 

corn  silage 

47.36 

“ 

54.26 

“ 

45.59 

66 

38.29 

66 

clover  hay 

4.00 

4.17 

4.63 

66 

4.30 

In  will  be  noted  that  until  corn  was  introduced  into  the  ration  in 
Lot  1,  the  feed  consumption  of  Lots  1 and  2 was  about  equal.  The  steers 
in  Lot  2 apparently  had  slightly  better  appetites  than  those  in  Lot  1. 


IO 


After  corn  was  introduced  into  the  ration  of  Lot  I,  the  average  daily  con- 
sumption of  corn  silage  dropped  very  materially.  During  the  last  month, 
the  average  daily  consumption  of  corn  silage  in  Lot  i was  20.77  pounds 
less  than  in  Lot  2.  It  will  also  be  observed  that  as  the  amount  of  corn 
increased  in  Lots  3 and  4,  the  consumption  of  the  cheaper  feed,  corn 
silage,  decreased  materially.  The  largest  daily  consumption  of  feed  in 
all  lots  occurred  during  the  second  month  of  the  feeding  period.  The 
maximum  daily  consumption  of  silage  was  58  pounds  per  steer  in  Lot  2. 
This  consumption  was  maintained  for  a short  period  only. 

As  the  feeding  period  lengthened,  it  will  be  noted  that  the  total  daily 
consumption  of  feed  decreased  in  all  lots. 

The  average  daily  gains  of  the  different  lots  both  by  months  and  for 
the  entire  period  are  shown  in  Table  II. 


Table)  II. — Daily  Gain  per  Steer  by  Months,  December  13,  1917,  to  April 

12,  1918  (120  days) 


Lot 

1 

Lot 

2 

Lot 

3 

Lot  4 

Ration 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  silage, 
clover  hay, 

shelled  corn 
last  40  days 

cottonseed 

meal 

clover  hay, 
corn  silage, 

no  corn 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  silage, 
clover  hay, 

one-half  feed 
shelled  corn 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  silage 
clover  hay, 

shelled  corn 

First  month 

1.57 

lbs.1 

1.69 

lbs.1 

1.44 

lbs.1 

2.29  lbs.1 

Second  month 

1.90 

66 

2.47 

66 

3.14 

66 

3.32  “ 

Third  month 

1.42 

64 

1.18 

66 

1.57 

66 

1.75  “ 

Fourth  month 

2.19 

66 

1.31 

66 

1.31 

“ 

2.22  “ 

Total  gain  per  steer 

212.2 

lbs. 

199.5 

lbs. 

224.1 

lbs. 

287.5  lbs. 

Average  daily  gain  for 
entire  period 

1.77 

“ 

1.66 

66 

1.87 

66 

2,40  “ 

1 Cattle  badly  shrunk  due  to  blizzard  January  12,  1918 — day  of  weighing 


Due  to  a very  severe  blizzard  with  heavy  snow  fall  and  extreme  cold 
occurring  at  the  time  of  the  first  30-day  weighing,  none  of  the  lots  show 
very  good  gains  for  the  first  month.  These  weights  actually  showed  a 
loss  over  the  group  weights  taken  10  days  previously. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  cattle  receiving  the  largest  amount  of 
corn  made  the  highest  average  daily  gain  and  maintained  their  gains  to 
the  end  of  the  feeding  period.  This  lot  of  cattle  averaged  approximately 
three-quarters  of  a pound  more  gain  per  day  for  the  entire  120-days  feed- 
ing period  than  the  cattle  in  Lot  2,  or  an  increased  rate  of  44.6  per  cent. 

The  cattle  receiving  one-half  feed  of  corn  made  an  increased  aver- 
age daily  gain  over  Lot  2 of  0.21  pound  or  approximately  12.6  per  cent, 
more  rapid  gains.  In  Lot  1 the  addition  of  corn  during  the  last  40  days 
of  the  feeding  period  increased  the  average  daily  gains  0.11  pound  or  6.7 
per  cent.  The  effect  of  adding  corn,  upon  the  rate  of  gain  during  the 


II 


latter  part  of  the  feeding  period  may  be  noted  in  a comparison  of  the 
average  daily  gains  of  Lots  i and  2 during  the  fourth  month.  Lot  1 made 
an  average  daily  gain  of  2.19  pounds,  while  Lot  2 made  only  1.31  pounds 
gain  daily  per  steer. 

The  influence  of  different  amounts  of  corn  upon  the  cost  of  gains  is 
shown  in  Table  III. 


Table  III. — Average  Amount  of  Feed  Consumed  per  Hundred  Pounds 
of  Gain  and  Cost  per  Hundred  Pounds  of  Gain 


Lot  1 

Lot  2 

Lot  3 

Lot  4 

Ration 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  silage, 
clover  hay, 

shelled  corn 
last  40  days 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  silage, 
clover  hay, 

no  corn 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  silage, 
clover  hay, 

one-half  feed 
shelled  corn 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  silage, 
clover  hay, 

shelled  corn 

Feed  per  100  pounds  gain 
shelled  corn 
cottonseed  meal 
corn  silage 
clover  hay 

234  lbs. 
158 

2678 

226 

169  lbs. 
3264 

251 

290  lbs. 
152 

2441 

248 

448  lbs. 
121 

1598 

179 

Cost  per  cwt.  of  gain 

$21.79 

$19.88 

$22.12 

$20.43 

Cost  per  cwt.  of  gain1 

24.72 

21.52 

25.32 

24.27 

1 Corn  at  $1.50  per  bushel  and  corn  silage  at  $8.50  per  ton 


When  the  economy  of  producing  ioo  pounds  of  beef  is  considered, 
the  ration  with  no  corn  is  superior  to  all  of  the  others.  The  gains  on  the 
cattle  fed  a medium  ration  of  corn  in  Lot  4 were  the  next  lowest  in  cost 
of  production.  Even  when  corn  and  corn  silage  are  advanced  in  price, 
the  ration  containing  a medium  amount  of  corn  remains  more  economical 
in  relation  to  cost  of  gain  than  the  rations  fed  Lots  1 and  3. 

In  Table  IV,  is  given  the  summary  of  the  four  lots. 


12 


Table;  IV. — Summary  of  Part  i 


Lot  1 

Lot  2 

Lot  3 1 

Lot  4 

Ration 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  silage, 
clover  hay, 

shelled  corn 
last  40  days 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  silage, 
clover  hay, 

no  corn 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  silage, 
clover  hay, 

one-half  feed 
shelled  corn 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  silage', 
clover  hay, 

medium  feed  * 
shelled  corn  \j 

Initial  value  per  cwt. 

$10.15 

$10.15 

$10.15 

$10.15 

Initial  weight 

10500  lbs. 

10497  lbs. 

9418  lbs. 

10472  lbs. 

Final  weight 

12622 

12492 

11435 

13347 

Total  gain 

2122 

1995 

2017 

2875 

\ 

Average  daily  gain 

1.77  “ 

1.66  “ 

1.87  “ 

2.40  “ 

Total  feed  consumed 

shelled  corn 

4979 

5856 

12872 

cottonseed  meal 

3355 

3365 

3062 

3480 

corn  silage 

56830 

65110 

49242 

45950 

clover  hay 

4795 

5000 

5005 

5160 

Daily  feed  per  steer 

shelled  corn 

4.152  “ 

5.42  “ 

10.73  “ 

cottonseed  meal 

2.80  “ 

2.80  “ 

2.83  “ 

2.90  “ 

corn  silage 

47.36  “ 

54.26  “ 

45.59  “ 

38.29  “ 

clover  hay 

4.00  “ 

4.17  “ 

4.63  “ 

4.30  “ 

Feed  per  pound  gain 

shelled  corn 

2.34  “ 

2.90  “ 

4.48  “ 

cottonseed  meal 

1.58  “ 

1.69  “ 

1.52  “ 

1.21  “ 

corn  silage 

26.78  “ 

32.64  “ 

24.41  “ 

15.98  “ 

clover  hay 

2.26  “ 

2.51  “ 

2.48  “ 

1.79  “ 

Cost  of  gain  per  cwt. 

$21.79 

$19.88 

$22.12 

$20.43 

Necessary  selling  price 

12.11 

11.70 

12.26 

12.36 

Actual  selling  price  in 

15.35 

lots  without  shrink 

14.85 

14.55 

14.85 

Profit  per  steer 

not  including  pork 

34.62 

35.55 

32.88 

39.85  • 

Pork  produced 

265  lbs. 

198  lbs. 

322  lbs. 

651  lbs. 

Corn  fed  to  hogs 

Shorts  fed  to  hogs 
Tankage  fed  to  hogs 

753 

831 

758 

1594 

109 

109 

Profit  per  steer 

including  pork 

$37.79 

$37.35 

$37.46 

$47.24 

1 Nine  steers  in  lot 

2 Average  daily  corn  last  40  days  approximately  14  pounds 

Based  on  the  following  prices  for  feeds:  shelled  corn,  $1.12  per  bushel  (corn  varied  25 
to  30  per  cent,  in  moisture  content);  cottonseed  meal,  $53.50  per  ton;  clover  hay,  $25.00 
per  ton;  corn  silage,  $7.50  per  ton 

Pork  is  valued  at  $17.50  per  cwt.  and  cost  of  additional  feed  consumed  by  hogs  is 
deducted  before  value  of  pork  from  droppings  is  accerdited  to  receipts  from  cattle 


*3 


/ 


It  would  have  been  necessary  to  value  the  cattle  in  Lot  2 receiving 
no  corn  at  $11.70  per  hundred  pounds,  or  at  a margin  of  $1.55  over  cost 
price  per  hundred  pounds  to  pay  all  costs  of  feed  and  original  cost  of 
cattle.  The  cattle  in  Lot  1 should  have  brought  $12.11  or  a margin  of 
$1.96  to  break  even.  Lot  3 required  a price  of  $12.26  per  hundred 
pounds,  or  a margin  of  $2.11  per  hundred  pounds  to  pay  all  costs.  The 
necessary  selling  price  for  Lot  4 was  $12.36  or  a margin  of  $2.21  per 
hundred  pounds. 

Actually  a margin  of  $4.40  per  hundred  was  received  for  the  cattle 
in  Lot  2,  making  a profit  of  $35.55  per  steer,  without  pork.  A margin  of 
$4.70  per  hundred  pounds  in  Lot  1 returned  an  average  profit  without 
pork  of  $34.62.  The  same  margin  in  Lot  3 returned  an  average  profit  of 
$32.88.  In  Lot  4,  a margin  of  $5.20  returned  an  average  profit  without 
pork  of  $39.85. 

The  cattle  fed  a medium  amount  of  corn  produced  the  largest  amount 
of  pork.  The  value  of  the  pork  produced  behind  the  cattle  increased  the 
profits  in  Lot  1 to  $37.79;  in  Lot  2,  $37.35;  in  Lot  3,  $37.46;  in  Lot  4, 
$47.24.  Adding  the  value  of  pork,  the  cattle  in  Lot  4 fed  approximately 
11  pounds  of  shelled  corn  daily  per  head  in  addition  to  the  basal  ration, 
returned  an  increased  profit  of  $9.89  over  those  receiving  no  corn. 

In  Table  V the  prices  of  cottonseed  meal  and  clover  hay  remain  con- 
stant, while  the  prices  of  corn  and  silage  are  increased  proportionately. 
No  allowance  is  made  for  the  value  of  pork.  The  influence  of  the  price 
of  corn  upon  the  financial  returns  of  the  four  rations  is  shown  ;n 
Table  V. 


Table  V. — Necessary  Selling  Price  with  Corn  at  Varying  Prices  and  Corn 
Silage  at  Corresponding  Prices  (Pork  not  included) 


Price 
per  bushel 
corn 

Price 
per  ton 
silage 

Lot  1 

Lot  2 

Lot  3 

Lot  4 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  silage, 
clover  hay, 

shelled  corn 
last  40  days 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  silage, 
clover  hay, 

no  corn 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  silage, 
clover  hay, 

one-half  feed 
shelled  corn 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  silage, 
clover  hay, 

shelled  corn 

$0.50 

$ 3.50 

$10.77 

$10.66 

$10.83 

$10.61 

0.75 

4.75 

11.23 

10.99 

11.33 

11.25 

1.00 

6.00 

11.68 

11.31 

11.83 

11.90 

1.25 

7.25 

12.14 

11.64 

12.33 

12.55 

1.50 

8.50 

12.60 

11.96 

12.82 

13.19 

1.75 

9.75 

13.06 

12.29 

13.32 

13.84 

2.00 

11.00 

13.51 

12.62 

13.82 

14.48 

14 


PART  II 

CORN  SILAGE  VS.  CORN  AND  SOYBEAN  SILAGE  FOR 
FATTENING  TWO  YEAR  OLD  STEERS 

The  growing  of  soybeans  in  rows  with  the  corn  is  coming  to  be  a 
rather  common  practice  in  many  communities  in  Indiana.  Many  men 
owning  silos  have  found  that  an  increased  tonnage  of  silage  per  acre  can 
be  secured  by  using  the  corn  and  soybean  combination  for  silage.  In 
some  cases,  the  soybeans  have  been  grown  separately  and  mixed  with  the 
corn  at  the  time  of  filling  the  silo.  There  has  been  a considerable  discus- 
sion as  to  the  relative  feeding  value  of  this  mixed  silage  as  compared 
with  straight  corn  silage.  Whether  or  not  sufficient  crude  protein  could 
be  placed  in  the  silage  by  the  addition  of  the  soybeans,  so  that  the  ex- 
pensive commercial  protein  concentrates  could  profitably  be  eliminated 
from  the  rations  for  fattening  cattle  is  an  important  question.  If  by 
growing  soybeans  and  mixing  them  with  corn,  either  by  growing  them  to- 
gether in  the  row  or  by  mixing  at  the  silo  at  the  time  of  filling,  the  con- 
tent of  crude  protein  in  the  silage  could  be  increased  to  a point  sufficient 
to  balance  the  rations  for  fattening  cattle,  a very  large  economy  in  the 
cost  of  producing  beef  could  be  established.  The  Station  inaugurated  a 
series  of  trials  in  1917-18  to  obtain  information  on  this  subject. 

The  corn  and  soybeans  were  grown  separately  and  the  two  crops 
were  mixed  at  the  cutter  in  the  proportion  of  two  parts  by  weight  of 
green  corn  and  one  part  green  soybeans.  The  corn  used  was  similar  in 
yield  and  stage  of  maturity  to  that  used  for  the  straight  corn  silage.  The 
soybeans  were  still  green,  no  pods  having  turned  brown  but  the  beans 
were  well  formed  in  the  pods  and  the  leaves  were  turning  yellow. 

Four  lots  of  cattle  were  used  in  this  trial.  Tots  4 and  5 were  fed 
a basal  ration  of  shelled  corn,  cottonseed  meal  and  clover  hay.  Tot  4 
received  the  straight  corn  silage  in  addition  to  the  basal  ration  while  Tot 
5 received  the  corn  and  soybean  silage  in  addition  to  the  basal  ration. 
This  comparison  should  give  information  as  to  the  relative  value  of  the 
two  silages  when  the  rations  were  supplemented  with  a protein  concen- 
trate. 

Tots  6 and  7 were  fed  a basal  ration  of  shelled  corn  and  clover  hay. 
In  addition  to  this  basal  ration,  Tot  6 received  corn  and  soybean  silage 
and  Tot  7 received  straight  corn  silage.  This  comparison  should  give 
information  as  to  the  relative  feeding  value  of  the  two  silages  when  not 
supplemented  with  a protein  concentrate. 

Practically  no  difference  was  observed  in  the  appetites  of  the  steers 
for  the  different  kinds  of  silage.  Each  lot  maintained  its  appetite  through- 
out the  feeding  period.  It  was  observed  that  during  the  trials  the  cattle 
in  Tot  5,  receiving  corn  and  soybean  silage,  cottonseed  meal,  clover  hay 
and  shelled  corn,  were  somewhat  more  laxative  than  the  cattle  in  the 
other  lots.  At  all  times,  however,  during  the  feeding  period,  all  lots 
of  cattle  were  slightly  more  -laxative  than  was  desirable.  This  loose- 
ness was  probably  due  to  the  laxative  effect  of  the  two  silages,  made 
from  rather  immature  corn.  To  check  the  tendency  to  looseness,  the 
quantity  of  hay  fed  to  all  lots  was  somewhat  higher  than  in  former  years. 


i5 


During-  the  feeding  period,  it  was  observed  that  the  corn  and  soybean 
silage  would  not  keep  fresh  as  long  when  exposed  to  the  air  as  the  straight 
corn  silage. 

Table  VI  is  given  showing  the  feed  consumption  of  the  different  lots 
by  months  and  for  the  entire  feeding  period. 


Tabu;  VI. — Average  Amount  of  Feed  Consumed  Daily  per  Head  by 
Fattening  Steers  by  Months — December  13,  1917  to 
April  12,  1918  (120  days) 


Lot  4 

Lot  5 

Lot  7 

Lot  6 

Ration 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  silage, 

clover  hay, 
shelled  corn 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  and  soy- 
bean silage, 

clover  hay, 
shelled  corn 

corn  silage, 

clover  hay, 
shelled  corn 

corn  and  soy- 
bean silage, 

clover  hay, 
shelled  corn 

First  month 

shelled  corn 
cottonseed  meal 

8.90  lbs. 
2.35  “ 

8.50  lbs. 
2.33  “ 

9.19  lbs. 

9.19  lbs. 

corn  silage 

41.77  “ 

41.43  “ 

41.15  “ 

41.15  “ 

clover  hay 

4.85  “ 

5.12  “ 

4.35  “ 

4.57  “ 

Second  month 

shelled  corn 

10.41  “ 

10.41  “ 

11.41  “ 

11.41  “ 

cottonseed  meal 

2.92  “ 

2.90  “ 

corn  silage 

41.02  “ 

41.32  “ 

38.90  “ 

38.50  “ 

clover  hay 

4.70  “ 

4.98  “ 

4.90  “* 

4.93  “ 

Third  month 

shelled  corn 
cottonseed  meal 

12.00  “ 
3.10  “ 

12.00  “ 
3.12  “ 

13.00  “ 

13.00  “ 

corn  silage 

37.67  “ 

37.80  “ 

35.00  “ 

33.90  “ 

clover  hay 

3.72  “ 

3.95  “ 

3.95  “ 

3.95  “ 

Fourth  month 

shelled  corn 
cottonseed  meal 

12.00  “ 
3.23  “ 

12.00  “ 
3.23  “ 

13.00  “ 

13.00  “ 

corn  silage 

32.72  “ 

35.87  “ 

33.03  “ 

32.97  “ 

clover  hay 

3.93  “ 

4.00  “ 

3.87  “ 

3.87  “ 

Average  daily  feed  for 
entire  period 

shelled  corn 
cottonseed  meal 

10.73  lbs. 
2.90  “ 

10.73  lbs. 
2.90  “ 

11.65  lbs. 

11.65  lbs. 

corn  silage 

38.29  “ 

30.10  “ 

37.02  “ 

36.63  “ 

clover  hay 

4.30  “ 

4.15  “ 

4.27  “ 

4.33  “ 

The  amount  of  shelled  corn  fed  daily  to  the  lots  was  purposely  fixed. 
The  amount  given  daily  to  Lots  4 and  5 was  the  same.  Lots  6 and  7 
received  daily  the  same  amount  of  corn.  The  cottonseed  meal  was  fed  on 
the  basis  of  2.5  pounds  per  1000  pounds  of  live  weight,  hence  the  daily 
average  consumption  varied  as  the  live  weight  varied.  The  silages  were 
fed  according  to  the  appetites  of  the  animals. 

Table  VII,  gives  the  average  daily  gain  by  months  and  for  the  entire 
feeding  period. 


i6 


Table:  VII. — Average  Daily  Gain  by  Months,  December  13,  1917 
to  April  1 2,  1918  (120  days) 


Lot  4 

Lot  5 

| Lot  7 

Lot  6 

Ration 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  silage, 

clover  hay, 
shelled  corn 

cottonseed 

—-meal, 

corn  and  soy- 
bean silage, 

clover  hay, 
shelled  corn 

corn  silage, 

clover  hay, 
shelled  corn 

corn  and  soy- 
bean silage, 

clover  hay, 
sheHed  corn 

First  month 

2.29  lbs.1 

2.08  lbs.1 

0.72  lbs.1 

0.93  lbs.1 

Second  month 

3.32  “ 

3.83  “ 

2.98  “ 

3.15  “ 

Third  month 

1.75  “ 

CO 

1.65  “ 

2.03  “ 

Fourth  month 

2.22  “ 

1.94  “ 

1.81  “ 

1.56  “ 

Total  gain  per  steer 

287.5  lbs. 

276.5  lbs. 

214.9  lbs. 

230.2  lbs. 

Average  daily  gain  for 
entire  period 

2.40  “ 

2.30  “ 

1.79  “ 

1.92  “ 

1 Cattle  badly  shrunk  due  to  blizzard  January  12,  1918 — day  of  weighing 


As  was  true  of  all  of  the  lots,  the  first  month’s  gain  was  seriously 
decreased  by  a blizzard  occuring  upon  the  30-day  weighing  date.  It  will 
be  observed  that  the  gains  of  the  cattle  in  Lot  4,  receiving  corn  silage, 
were  maintained  somewhat  better  than  by  the  cattle  in  Lot  5,  receiving 
corn  and  soybean  silage.  Upon  the  other  hand,  Lot  6 receiving  corn  and 
soybean  silage  made  superior  gains  until  the  last  month,  to  Lot  7 receiv- 
ing corn  silage. 

In  average  daily  gains,  the  cattle  fed  corn  silage  in  Lot  4 made 
approximately  4.3  per  cent,  more  rapid  gains  than  the  cattle  fed  corn  and 
soybean  silage  in  Lot  5.  In  Lot  6,  however,  the  average  daily  gain  was 
7.2  per  cent,  more  rapid  than  in  Lot  7. 

Table  VIII  is  a statement  of  the  feed  required  for  100  pounds  of 
gain  and  the  cost  of  gains. 


Table  VIII. — Average  Amount  of  Feed  Consumed  and  Cost  per 
Hundred  Pounds  of  Gain 


Lot  4 

Lot  5 

Lot  7 

Lot  6 

Ration 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  silage, 

clover  hay, 
shelled  corn 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  and  soy- 
bean silage, 

clover  hay, 
shelled  corn 

corn  silage, 

clover  hay, 
shelled  corn 

corn  and  soy- 
bean silage, 

clover  hay, 
shelled  corn 

Feed  per  100  pounds  gain 
shelled  corn 
cottonseed  meal 
corn  silage 
clover  hay 

448  lbs. 
121 

1598 

179 

466  lbs. 
126 

1097 

196 

650  lbs. 

2067 

238 

607  lbs. 

1909 

226 

Cost  per  cwt.  of  gain 

$20.43 

$21.48 

$23.74 

$22.13 

Cost  per  cwt.  of  gain1 

24.27 

25.49 

29.19 

27.20 

1 Corn  at  $1.50  per  bushel  and  corn  silage  at  $8.50  per  ton 


i7 


As  with  the  gains,  the  advantage  in  cost  of  gains  between  the  cattle 
in  Lots  4 and  5 is  favorable  to  the  corn  silage  while  between  Lots  6 and 
7,  the  advantage  is  favorable  to  the  cattle  receiving  corn  and  soybean 
silage. 

Table  IX. — Summary  of  Part  II 


Ration 

Lot  4 

Lot  5 

||  Lot  7 

Lot  6 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  silage, 

clover  hay, 
shelled  corn 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  and  soy- 
bean silage, 

clover  hay, 
shelled  corn 

corn  silage, 

clover  hay, 
shelled  corn 

corn  and  soy- 
bean silage, 

clover  hay, 
shelled  corn 

Initial  value  per  cwt. 

$10.15 

$10.15 

$10.15 

$10.15 

Initial  weight 

10472  lbs. 

10442  lbs. 

10438  lbs. 

10420  lbs. 

Final  weight 

13347 

13207 

12587 

12722 

Total  gain 

2875 

2765 

2149 

2302 

Average  daily  gain 

2.40  “ 

2.30  “ 

1.79  “ 

1.92  “ 

Total  feed  consumed 

shelled  corn 

12872 

12872 

13979 

13978.5  “ 

cottonseed  meal 

3480 

3475 

corn  silage 

45950 

46925 

j 44425 

43955  “ 

clover  hay 

5160 

5415 

5120 

5195 

Daily  feed  per  steer 

shelled  corn 

10.73  “ 

10.73  “ 

11.65  “ 

11.65  “ 

cottonseed  meal 

2.90  “ 

2.90  “ 

corn  silage 

38.29  “ 

39.10  “ 

37.02  “ 

36.63  “ 

clover  hay 

4.30  “ 

4.51  “ 

4.27  “ 

4.33  “ 

Feed  per  pound  gain 

shelled  corn 

4.48  “ 

4.66  “ 

6.50  “ 

6.07  “ 

cottonseed  meal 

1.21  “ 

1.26  “ 

corn  silage 

15.98  “ 

16.97  “ 

20.67  “ 

19.09  “ 

clover  hay 

1.79  “ 

1.96  “ 

2.38  “ 

2.26  “ 

Cost  of  gain  per  cwt. 

-e/s 

to 

o 

Oi. 

CO 

$21.48 

$23.74 

$22.13 

Necessary  selling  price 

12.36 

12.52 

12.47 

12.32 

Actual  selling  price  in 

lots  without  shrink 

15.35 

15.25 

14.65 

14.35 

Profit  per  steer 

not  including  pork 

39.85 

36.02 

27.44 

25.86 

Pork  produced 

651  lbs. 

574  lbs. 

683  lbs. 

681  lbs. 

Corn  fed  to  hogs 

1594 

1218 

i 1598.5  “ 

1598.5  “ 

Shorts  fed  to  hogs 

109 

114 

114 

114 

Tankage  fed  to  hogs 

109 

114 

114 

114 

Profit  per  steer 

including  pork 

$47.24 

$42.77 

$35.34 

$33.73 

Feed  prices:  corn.  $1.12  per  bushel;  cottonseed  meal,  $53.50  per  ton;  clover  hay,  $25.00 
per  ton,  and  silage,  $7.50  per  ton.  Pork  at  $17.50  per  cwt.  Cost  of  extra  feed  fed  to  hogs 
deducted  from  value  of  pork  before  adding  to  returns  of  the  cattle 


i8 


It  will  be  observed  that  the  cattle  in  Lot  4 could  have  been  sold  for 
16  cents  per  hundred  pounds  less  than  those  in  Lot  5 and  the  financial 
return  would  have  been  the  same  for  each  lot.  The  cattle  in  Lot  4 were 
valued  at  10  cents  per  hundred  more  than  those  in  Lot  5,  making  a larger 
profit  per  steer,  without  pork,  of  $3.83.  While  the  cattle  in  Lot  7 required 
a selling  price  of  15  cents  per  hundred  pounds  more  than  those  in  Lot  6 
to  bring  the  same  amount,  they  actually  sold  for  30  cents  per  hundred 
more,  returning  an  average  profit  per  steer  without  pork  of  $1.58  more 
than  the  steers  in  Lot  6. 

The  value  of  the  pork  produced  from  the  droppings  of  the  cattle  in 
the  different  lots  does  not  cause  any  decided  change  in  the  relative  profits 
of  any  of  the  four  lots. 

PART  III 

VALUE  OF  COTTONSEED  MEAL  IN  RATIONS  CONTAINING 
CORN  SILAGE  OR  CORN  AND  SOYBEAN  SILAGE 
FOR  FATTENING  TWO  YEAR  OLD  STEERS 

Much  work  has  been  done  in  previous  years  by  this  station  to  de- 
termine the  value  of  cottonseed  meal  as  a source  of  protein  for  supple- 
menting rations  for  fattening  steers.  In  conducting  the  trials  reported 
in  Part  II,  another  comparison  is  available  showing  the  value  of  cotton- 
seed meal  in  the  rations  of  corn,  silage  and  clover  hay. 

Table  X shows  the  average  daily  consumption  of  feeds  by  months 
and  during  the  entire  feeding  period. 


19 


Table  X. — Average  Amount  of  Feed  Consumed  Daily  per  Head  by 
Months — December  13,  1917  to  April  12,  1918  (120  days) 


Lot  4 

Lot  7 

Lot  5 

Lot  6 

Ration 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  silage, 
clover  hay, 
shelled  corn 

corn  silage, 
clover  hay, 
shelled  corn 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  and  soy- 
bean silage, 
clover  hay, 
shelled  corn 

corn  and  soy- 
bean silage, 
clover  hay, 
shelled  corn 

First  month 

shelled  corn 
cottonseed  meal 

8.50  lbs. 
2.35  “ 

9.19  lbs. 

8.50  lbs. 
2.33  “ 

9.19  lbs. 

corn  silage 

41.77 

“ 

41.15  “ 

41.43  “ 

41.15  “ 

clover  hay 

4.85 

(4 

4.35  “ 

5.12  “ 

4.75  “ 

Second  month 

shelled  corn 
cottonseed  meal 

10.41 

2.92 

44 

11.41  “ 

10.41  “ 
2.90  “ 

11.41  “ 

corn  silage 

41.02 

44 

• 38.90  “ 

41.32  “ 

38.50  “ 

clover  hay 

4.70 

44 

4.90  “ 

4.98  “ 

4.93  “ 

Third  month 

shelled  corn 
cottonseed  meal 

12.00 

3.10 

« 

13.00  “ 

12.00  “ 
3.12  “ 

13.00  “ 

corn  silage 

37.67 

44 

35.00  “ 

37.80  “ 

33.90  “ 

clover  hay 

3.72 

3.95  “ 

3.95  “ 

3.95  “ 

Fourth  month 

shelled  corn 
cottonseed  meal 

12.00 

3.25 

44 

13.00  “ 

12.00  “ 
3.23  “ 

13.00  “ 

corn  silage 

32.72 

“ 

33.03  “ 

35.87  “* 

32.97  “ 

clover  hay 

3.93 

44 

3.87  “ 

4.00  “ 

3.87  “ 

Average  daily  feed  for 
entire  period 

shelled  corn 
cottonseed  meal 

10.73  lbs. 
2.90  “ 

11.65  lbs. 

10.73  lbs. 
2.90  “ 

11.65  lbs. 

corn  silage 

38.29 

“ 

37.02  “ 

39.10  “ 

36.63  “ 

clover  hay 

4.30 

4.27  “ 

4.15  “ 

4.33  “ 

In  these  trials,  Lots  4 and  7 and  Lots  5 and  6 are  comparable.  Lot 
4 received  2.5  pounds  of  cottonseed  meal  per  1000  pounds  of  live  weight 
in  addition  to  the  basal  ration  of  shelled  corn,  corn  silage  and  clover  hay. 
Lot  5 received  the  same  amount  of  cottonseed  meal  in  addition  to  the 
basal  ration  of  shelled  corn,  corn  and  soybean  silage  and  clover  hay. 

The  excellent  effect  of  cottonseed  meal  upon  feed  consumption  was 
apparent.  The  cattle  in  Lots  4 and  5 consumed  more  concentrates  and 
more  roughage  daily  per  steer  than  those  in  Lots  7 and  6.  Attempts  were 
made  to  feed  the  same  amount  of  concentrates  in  the  form  of  corn  to 
Lots  6 and  7 as  was  fed  in  the  form  of  corn  and  cottonseed  meal  to  Lots 
4 and  5.  Each  time  such  an  attempt  was  made,  the  cattle  in  Lots  6 and 
7 seriously  decreased  their  consumption  of  silage  and  hay.  Even  with 
the  consumption  of  less  total  daily  concentrates,  the  cattle  in  the  lots  not 
receiving  cottonseed  meal,  refused  to  consume  as  much  silage  as  the 
other  cattle. 

Table  XI  gives  the  average  daily  gain  by  months  and  for  the  entire 
period. 


20 


Table:  XI. — Average  Daily  Gain  by  Months — December  13,  1917 
to  April  12,  1918  (120  days) 


Lot  4 

Lot  7 

| Lot  5 

Lot  6 

Ration 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  silage, 
clover  hay, 
shelled  corn 

corn  silage, 
clover  hay, 
shelled  corn 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  and  soy- 
bean silage, 
clover  hay, 
shelled  corn 

corn  and  soy- 
bean silage, 
clover  hay, 
shelled  corn 

First  month 

2.29  lbs.1 

0.72  lbs.1 

2.08  lbs.1 

0.93  lbs.1 

Second  month 

3.32  “ 

2.98  “ 

3.83  “ 

3.15  “ 

Third  month 

1.75  “ 

1.65  “ 

1.37  “ 

2.03  “ 

Fourth  month 

2.22  “ 

1.81  “ 

1.94  “ 

1.56  “ 

Total  gain  per  steer 

287,5  lbs. 

214.9  lbs. 

276.5  lbs. 

230.2  lbs. 

Average  daily  gain  for 
entire  period 

2.40  “ 

1.79  “ 

2.30  “ 

1.92  “ 

1 Cattle  badly  shrunk  due  to  blizzard  January  12,  1918 — day  of  weighing 


The  addition  of  cottonseed  meal  increased  the  average  daily  gain 
in  Lots  4 and  5,  both  by  months  and  as  an  average  for  the  entire  period. 
As  an  average  throughout  the  entire  period,  the  cattle  in  Lot  4 gained  34 
per  cent,  more  rapidly  than  those  in  Lot  7.  In  Lot  5,  the  cattle  made  an 
increased  average  daily  gain  of  19.8  per  cent,  over  that  of  the  cattle  in 
Lot  6. 

Table  XII  shows  the  feed  requirements  per  hundred  pounds  of  gain 
and  the  attending  cost. 


Table:  XII. — Average  Amount  of  Feed  Consumed  and  Cost  per 
Hundred  Pounds  of  Gain 


Lot  4 

Lot  7 

Lot  5 

Lot  6 

Ration 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  silage, 
clover  hay, 
shelled  corn 

corn  silage, 
clover  hay, 
shelled  corn 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  and  soy- 
bean silage, 
clover  hay, 
shelled  corn 

corn  and  soy- 
bean silage, 
clover  hay, 
shelled  corn 

Feed  per  100  pounds  gain 
shelled  corn 
cottonseed  meal 
corn  silage 
clover  hay 

448  lbs. 
121 

1598 

179 

650  lbs. 

2067 

238 

466  lbs. 
126 

1697 

196 

607  lbs. 

1909 

226 

Cost  per  cwt.  of  gain 

$20.43 

$23.74 

$21.48 

$22.13 

Cost  per  cwt.  of  gain1 

24.27 

29.19  , 

25.49 

27.20 

1 Corn  at  $1.50  per  bushel  and  corn  silage  at  $8.50  per  ton 


21 


Where  no  cottonseed  meal  was  used  in  Lot  7,  the  cost  of  produc- 
tion of  100  pounds  of  beef  was  increased  $3.31  or  3.3  cents  per  pound 
above  Lot  4.  In  Lot  6,  the  increased  cost  over  Lot  5 was  65  cents  per 
hundred  pounds  of  gain.  Even  at  the  high  price  of  $53.50  per  ton,  cotton- 
seed meal  effects  a considerable  saving  in  feeding  two  year  old  steers. 

The  figures  in  Table  XIII  give  the  summary  of  the  four  lots. 


Table  XIII. — Summary  of  Part  III 


Ration 

Lot  4 

Lot  7 

j Lot  5 

Lot  6 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  silage, 
clover  hay, 
shelled  corn 

corn  silage, 
clover  hay, 
shelled  corn 

cottonseed 

meal, 

corn  and  soy- 
bean silage, 
clover  hay, 
shelled  corn 

corn  and  soy- 
bean silage, 
clover  hay, 
shelled  corn 

Initial  value  per  cwt. 

$10.15 

$10.15 

$10.15 

$10.15 

Initial  weight 

10472  lbs. 

10438  lbs. 

10442  lbs. 

10420 

lbs. 

Final  weight 

13347 

12587 

13207 

12722 

44 

Total  gain 

2875 

2149 

2765 

2302 

(4 

Average  daily  gain 

2.40  “ 

1.79  “ 

2.30  “ 

1.92 

“ 

Total  feed  consumed 

shelled  corn 

12872 

13979 

12872 

13978.5 

cottonseed  meal 

3480 

3475 

corn  silage 

45950  “ 

44425 

46926 

43955 

44 

clover  hay 

5160 

5120 

5416 

5195 

44 

Daily  feed  per  steer 

shelled  corn 

10.73  “ 

11.66  “ 

10.73  “ 

11.65 

“ 

cottonseed  meal 

2.90  “ 

2.90  “ 

corn  silage 

38.29  “ 

37.02  “ 

39.10  “ 

36.63 

clover  hay 

4.30  “ 

4.27  “ 

4.51  “ 

4.33 

Feed  per  pound  gain 

shelled  corn 

4.48  “ 

6.50  “ 

4.66  “ 

6.07 

44 

cottonseed  meal 

1.21  “ 

1.26  “ 

corn  silage 

15.98  “ 

20.67  “ 

16.97  “ 

19.09 

44 

clover  hay 

1.79  “ 

2.38  “ 

1.96  “ 

2.26 

44 

Cost  of  gain  per  cwt. 

$20.43 

$23.74 

$21.48 

$22.13 

Necessary  selling  price 

12.36 

12.47 

12.52 

12.32 

Actual  selling  price  in 

lots  without  shrink 

15.35 

14.65 

15.25 

14.35 

Profit  per  steer 

not  including  pork 

39.85 

27.44 

36.02 

25.86 

Pork  produced 

651  lbs. 

683  lbs. 

574  lbs. 

681 

lbs. 

Corn  fed  to  hogs 

1594 

1598.5  “ 

1218 

1598.5 

<< 

Shorts  fed  to  hogs 

109 

114 

114 

114 

“ 

Tankage  fed  to  hogs 

109 

114 

114 

114 

“ 

Profit  per  steer 

including  pork 

$47.24 

$35.34 

' $42.77 

$33.73 

22 


There  is  a difference  between  the  necessary  selling  price  of  the  cat- 
tle in  Lots  4 and  7 of  n cents  per  hundred  pounds  in  favor  of  Lot  4. 
There  was  an  actual  difference  of  70  cents  per  hundred  in  the  valuations 
of  the  two  lots.  This  increased  valuation  for  the  cattle  of  Lot  4,  together 
•with  the  superior  and  cheaper  gains,  caused  an  increase  in  profit  per 
steer  without  pork  in  Lot  4 over  Lot  7 of  $12.41,  due  to  the  effect  of  add- 
ing cottonseed  meal  to  the  basal  ration  of  corn,  corn  silage  and  clover 
hay. 

In  Lot  5,  the  necessary  selling  price  was  20  cents  per  hundred  pounds 
more  than  in  Lot  6.  However,  these  cattle  were  valued  at  $15.25  or  90 
cents  per  hundred  pounds  more  than  the  cattle  in  Lot  6.  The  increase  in 
the  profit  per  steer  without  pork  caused  by  the  addition  of  cottonseed 
meal  to  corn,  corn  and  soybean  silage  and  clover  hay,  was  $10.16. 

The  hogs  in  Lots  4 and  5 did  not  gain  quite  as  rapidly  as  those  in 
Lots  6 and  7.  These  differences  in  production  of  pork  caused  no  change 
in  the  relative  total  profits  of  Lots  4 and  7 but  deducted  $1.12  per  steer 
from  the  increase  in  profits  per  steer  in  Lot  5 as  compared  with  Lot  6. 

It  may  be  stated  that  cottonseed  meal  when  added  to  rations  of  corn, 
corn  silage  and  clover  hay  or  corn,  corn  and  soybean  silage  and  clover  hay 
will  1 — increase  feed  consumption,  both  concentrates  and  roughage ; 
2 — increase  the  rate  of  gain ; 3 — decrease  the  cost  of  production ; and  4 — 
through  a better  finish,  increase  the  selling  price  of  the  cattle.  The  total 
result  of  the  four  advantages  means  increased  profits  in  the  feed  lot. 


23 


FINANCIAL  STATEMENT 

Lot  i. — Ten  Steers  Fed  Cottonseed  Meal,  Corn  Silage,  Clover  Hay  and 
Shelled  Corn  for  the  Last  40  Days,  1917-18 


Dec.  13,  To  10  steers,  weight  10500  lbs.  @ $10.15  per  cwt.: $1065.75 

Dec.  13-April  12,  To  3355  lbs.  cottonseed  meal  @ $53.50  per  ton 89.75 

Dec.  13-April  12,  To  56830  lbs.  corn  silage  @ $7.50  per  ton..... 213.11 

Dec.  13-April  12,  To  4795  lbs.  clover  hay  @ $25.00  per  ton 59.94 

Mar.  3-April  12,  To  4979  lbs.  shelled  corn  @ $1.12  per  bu 99.58 


Total  expenditures  $1528.13 

April  12,  By  10  steers,  12622  lbs.  @ $14.85  per  cwt 1874.37 

Total  profit  without  pork — 346.24 

Profit  per  steer  without  pork 34.62 

Dec.  13  to  April  12,  To  753  lbs.  shelled  corn  @ $1.12  per  bu ...$  15.06 

By  265  lbs.  pork  @ $17.50  per  cwt..... 46.73 


Value  of  pork  produced  from  droppings $ 31.67 

Total  receipts  including  pork 1906.04 

Total  profits  including  pork 377.91 

Profit  per  steer  including  pork 37.79 

Price  per  bushel  corn  fed  to  cattle 5.37 


Lot  2. — Ten  Steers  Fed  Cottonseed  Meal,  Corn  Silage  and  Clover  Hay, 

1917-18 


Dec.  13,  To  10  steers,  weight  10497  lbs.  @ $10.15  per  cwt ..$1065.45 

Dec.  13-April  12,  To  3365  lbs.  cottonseed  meal  @ $53.50  per  ton 90.01 

Dec.  13-April  12,  To  65110  lbs.  corn  silage  @ $7.50  per  ton 244.16 

Dec.  13-April  12,  To  5000  lbs.  clover  hay  @ $25.00  per  ton 62.50 


Total  expenditures  $1462.12 

April  12,  By  10  steers,  weight  12492  lbs.  @ $14.55  per  cwt...... 1817.59 

Total  profit  without  pork  . 355.47 

Profit  per  steer  without  pork 35.55 

Dec.  13-April  12, 

To  831  lbs.  shelled  corn  @ $1.12  per  bu $'  16.62 

By  198  lbs.  pork  @ $17.50  per  cwt 34.65 


Value  of  pork  produced  from  droppings ....$  18.03 

Total  receipts  including  pork 1835.62 

Total  profit  including  pork 373.50 

Profit  per  steer  including  pork 37.35 


24 


FINANCIAL  STATEMENT— Continued 

Lot  3. — Nine  Steers  Fed  Cottonseed  Meal,  Corn  Silage,  Clover  Hay  and 
One-half  Feed  of  Shelled  Corn,  1917-18 

Dec.  13,  To  9 steers,  weight  9418  lbs.  @ $10.15  per  cwt $ 955.93 

Dec.  13-April  12,  To  5856  lbs.  shelled  corn  @ $1.12  per  bu 117.12 

Dec.  13-April  12,  To  3062  lbs.  cottonseed  meal  @ $'53.50  per  ton 81.91 

Dec.  13-April  12,  To  49242  lbs.  corn  silage  @ $7.50  per  ton 184.66 

Dec.  13-April  12,  To  5005  lbs.  clover  hay  @ $25.00  per  ton 62.56 


Total  expenditures  ..$1402.18 

April  12,  By  9 steers,  weight  11435  lbs.  @ $14.85  per  cwt 1698.10 

Total  profit  without  pork , 295.92 

Profit  per  steer  without  pork 32.88 

Dec.  13-April  12, 

To  758  lbs.  shelled  corn  @ $1.12  per  bu... $'  15.16 

By  322  lbs.  of  pork  @ $17.50  per  cwt 56.35 


Value  of  pork  produced  from  droppings  $ 41.19 

Total  receipts  including  pork 1739.29 

Total  profit  including  pork 337.11 

Profit  per  steer  including  pork 37..46 

Price  received  per  bushel  of  corn  fed  cattle 4.344 


Lot  4. — Ten  Steers  Fed  Cottonseed  Meal,  Corn  Silage,  Clover  Hay,  and 

Shelled  Corn,  1917-18 

Dec.  13,  To  10  steers,  weight  10472  lbs.  @ $10.15  per  cwt $1062.91 

Dec.  13-April  12,  To  12872  lbs.  shelled  corn  @ $1.12  per  bu 257.44 

Dec.  13-April  12,  To  3480  lbs.  cottonseed  meal  @ 53.50  per  ton 93.09 

Dec.  13-April  12,  To  45950  lbs.  corn  silage  @ $7.50  per  ton 172.31 

Dec.  13-April  12,  To  5160  lbs.  clover  hay  @ $25.00  per  ton 64.50 


Total  expenditures  $1650.25 

April  12,  By  10  steers,  weight  13347  lbs.  @ $16.35  per  cwt 2048.76 

Total  profit  without  pork 398.51 

Profit  per  steer  without  pork * 39.85 

Dec.  13-April  12, 

To  1594  lbs.  shelled  corn  @ $1.12  per  bu $ 31.88 

To  109  lbs.  tankage  @ $100.00  per  ton 5.45 

To  109  lbs.  shorts  @ $50.00  per  ton 2.73 


Total  cost  of  extra  feed  for  hogs 40.06 

By  651  lbs.  pork  @ $17.50  per  cwt... 113.93 


Value  of  pork  produced  from  droppings $ 73.87 

Total  receipts  including  pork 2122.63 

Total  profit  including  pork  472.38 

Profit  per  steer  including  pork 47.24 

Price  received  per  bushel  of  corn  fed  cattle 3.175 


25 

\ 

FINANCIAL  STATEMENT— Continued 

Lot  5. — Ten  Steers  Fed  Cottonseed  Meal,  Corn  and  Soybean  Silage, 
Clover  Hay  and  Shelled  Corn,  1917-18 

Dec.  13,  To  10  steers,  weight  10442  lbs.  @ $10.15  per  cwt $1059.86 

Dec.  13-April  12,  To  12872  lbs.  shelled  corn  @ $1.12  per  bu 257.44 

Dec.  13-April  12,  To  3475  lbs.  cottonseed  meal  @ $53.50  per  ton 92.96 

Dec.  13-April  12,  To  46925  lbs.  corn  and  soybean  silage  @ $7.50 

per  ton 175.97 

Dec.  13-April  12,  To  5415  lbs.  clover  hay  @ $25.00  per  ton 67.69 


Total  expenditures  $1653.92 

April  12,  By  10  steers,  weight  13207  lbs.  @ $15.25  per  cwt -----  2014.07 

Total  profit  without  pork 360.15 

Profit  per  steer  without  pork 36.02 

Dec.  13-April  12, 

To  1218  lbs.  shelled  corn  @ $1.12  per  bu $ 24.36 

To  114  lbs.  tankage  @ $100.00  per  ton 5.70 

To  114  lbs.  shorts  @ $50.00  per  ton 2.85 


Total  cost  of  extra  feed  for  hogs 32.91 

By  574  lbs.  pork  @ $17.50  per  cwt 100.45 


Value  of  pork  produced  from  droppings $ 67.54 

Total  receipts  including  pork — 2081.61 

Total  profits  including  pork 427.69 

Profit  per  steer  including  pork 42.77 

Price  received  per  bushel  of  corn  fed  cattle....- 2.981 


Lot  6. — Ten  Steers  Fed  Corn  and  Soybean  Silage,  Clover  Hay  and 

Shelled  Corn,  1917-18 

Dec.  13,  To  10  steers,  weight  10420  lbs.  @ $10.15  per  cwt $1057.63 

Dec.  13-April  12,  To  13978.5  lbs.  shelled  corn  @ $1.12  per  -bu 279.57 

Dec.  13-April  12,  To  43955  lbs.  corn  and  soybean  silage  @ $7.50 

per  ton 164.83 

Dec.  13-April  12,  To  5195  lbs.  clover  hay  @ $25.00  per  ton 64.94 


Total  expenditures  $1566.97 

April  12,  By  10  steers,  weight  12722  lbs.  @ $14.35  per  cwt 1825.61 

Total  profit  without  pork 258.64 

Profit  per  steer  without  pork 25.86 

Dec.  13-April  12, 

To  1598.5  lbs.  shelled  corn  @ $1.12  per  bu _..$  31.97 

To  114  lbs.  tankage  @ $100.00  per  ton 5.70 

To  114  lbs.  shorts  @ $50.00  per  ton 2.85 


Total  cost  of  extra  feed  for  hogs 40.52 

By  681  lbs.  pork  @ $17.50  per  cwt 119.18 


Value  of  pork  produced  from  droppings $ 78.66 

Total  receipts  including  pork 1904.27 

Total  profit  including  pork 337.30 

Profit  per  steer  including  pork 33.73 

Price  received  per  bushel  of  corn  fed  to  cattle 2.471 


26 


FINANCIAL  STATEMENT— Continued 

Lot  7. — Ten  Steers  Fed  Corn  Silage,  Clover  Hay,  and  Shelled  Corn, 

1917-18 

Dec.  13,  To  10  steers,  weight  10438  lbs.  @ $10.15  per  cwt $1059.46 

Dec.  13-April  12,  To  13979  lbs.  shelled  corn  @ $1.12  per  hu... 279.58 

Dec.  13-April  12,  To  44425  lbs.  corn  silage  @ $7.50  per  ton 166.69 

Dec.  13-April  12,  To  5120  lbs.  clover  hay  @ $25.00  per  ton... 64.00 


Total  expenditures  $1569.63 

April  12,  By  10  steers,  weight  12587  lbs.  @ $14.65  per  cwt 1844.00 

Total  profit  without  pork .. 274.37 

Profit  per  steer  without  pork 27.44 

Dec.  13-April  12, 

To  1598.5  lbs.  shelled  corn  @ $1.12  per  bu .$  31.97 

To  114  lbs.  tankage  @ $100.00  per  ton 5.70 

To  114  lbs.  shorts  @ $50.00  per  ton 2.85 


Total  cost  of  extra  feed  for  hogs 40.52 

By  683  pounds  of  pork  @ $17.50  per  cwt $119.53 


Value  of  pork  produced  from  droppings $ 79.01 

Total  receipts  including  pork $1923.01 

Total  profit  including  pork 353.38 

Profit  per  steer  including  pork 35.34 

Price  received  per  bushel  of  corn  fed  to  cattle 2.535 


T^Zb 


ujiyersitt  cf  minors  uhmry 

PURDUE  UNIVERSITY 


Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


Bulletin  No.  221 
September,  1918 


SHEEP  FEEDING 
VIII 


FATTENING  WESTERN  LAMBS 
1917-1918 


Part  I. 

Part  II. 
Part  III. 
Part  IV. 
Part  V. 


Corn  Silage  Alone  vs.  Corn  Silage  and  Varying  Amounts  of 
Dry  Roughage 

Comparison  of  Protein  Supplements 
Hominy  Feed  vs.  Shelled  Corn 
Partial  vs.  Continuous  Grain  Feeding- 
Influence  of  Shearing 


PnbMed  by  tbe  Station: 
LAFAYETTE,  INDIANA 
U.  S.  A. 


PURDUE  UNIVERSITY  AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 


BOARD  OP  CONTROL 
Joseph  D.  Oliver,  President,  South  Bend 


Fay  S.  Chandler, Indianapolis 

Charles  Downing  Greenfield 

John  A.  Hillenbrand Batesville 

Cyrus  M.  Hobbs Bridgeport 


Winthrop  E.  Stone,  A.  M.,  Ph.  D. 


Warren  T.  McCray Kentland 

James  W.  Noel Indianapolis 

Andrew  E.  Reynolds Crawfordsville 

William  V.  Stuart LaFayette 


.President  of  the  University 


ADVISORY  COMMITTEE 
(Under  Legislative  Act  of  1909) 

John  G.  Brown,  Monon D.  B.  Johnson,  Mooresville . . 

State  Live  Stock  Association  State  Dairy  Association 

U.  R.  Fishel,  Hope D.  F.  Maish,  Frankfort  

State  Poultry  Fanciers-’  Association  State  Corn  Growers-’  Association 

F.  J.  Heacock,  Salem Indiana  Horticultural  Society 


ADMINISTRATION 
Charles  G.  Woodbury,  M.  S.,  Director 


Harry  J.  Reed Assistant  to  the  Director 

Nellie  Tracy Administrative  Assistant 

Mary  K.  Bloom Bookkeeper 


AGRICULTURAL  EXTENSION 
George  I.  Christie,  B.  S.  A.,  Superintendent 
Thomas  A.  Coleman  .State  County  Agent  Leader 

George  M.  Frier,  B.  S.  A Associate  in 

Short  Courses  and  Exhibits 
Mabel  L.  Harlan. .Ass't  in  Agricultural  Extension 

ANIMAL  HUSBANDRY 
John  H.  Skinner,  B.  S.,  Chief 

Claude  M.  Vestal,  B.  S 

Associate  in  Animal  Husbandry 

George  A.  Branaman,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Animal  Husbandry 

Herbert  E.  McCartney,  B.  S.  A 

Ass't  in  Animal  Husbandry  Extension 

BOTANY 

Herbert  S.  Jackson,  A.  B.,  Chief 

George  N.  Hoffer,  M.  S Associate  in  Botany 

Luna  E.  Allison,  B.  S Assistant  in  Botany 

Edwin  B.  Mains,  Ph.  D Assistant  in  Botany 

DAIRY  HUSBANDRY 
Ollie  E.  Reed,  M.  S.,  Chief 

Howard  W.  Gregory,  B.  S 

Associate  in  Dairy  Manufactures 

George  Spitzer,  Ph.  G..  B.  S 

Associate  in  Dairy  Chemistry 

Turner  H.  Broughton,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Creamery  Inspection 

William  F.  Epple,  Ph.  G 

Assistant  in  Dairy  Chemistry 

Hubert  W.  Fleisher,  B.  S.  A 

Assistant  in  Creamery  Inspection 

ENTOMOLOGY 
James  Troop,  M.  S.,  Chief 

FARM  MECHANICS 

William  Aitkenhead,  M.  E.,  M.  A 

Specialist  in  Farm  Mechanics 

HORTICULTURE 
Laurenz  Greene,  M.  S.  A.,  Chief 
Joseph  Oskamp,  B.  S.,  Associate  in  Pomology 

Walter  A.  Huelson,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Horticulture 

NUTRITION 

Ralph  H.  Carr,  Ph.  D 

Associate  in  Nutrition  Chemistry 

POULTRY  HUSBANDRY 
Allen  G.  Philips,  B.  S.  A.,  Chief 

Dwight  C.  Kennard,  Ph.  C.,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Husbandry 


SOILS  AND  CROPS 
Alfred  T.  Wiancko  B.  S.  A.,  Chief 

Martin  L.  Fisher,  M.  S 

Assistant  Chief  in  Soils  and  Crops 

Samuel  D.  Conner,  M.  S 

Associate  Chemist  in  Soils  and  Crops 

Clinton  O.  Cromer,  B.  S Associate  in  Crops 

Sadocie  C.  Jones.  M.  S ..Associate  in  Soils 

-?Ernest  N.  Fergus,  M.  Sc 

Assistant  in  Soils  and  Crops 

STATE  CHEMIST 

Edward  G.  Proulx,  M.  S.1 State  Chemist 

Reuben  O.  Hitler,  B.  S.2.... Deputy  State  Chemist 

Margaret  Briggs,  B.  S Deputy  State  Chemist 

Paul  B.  Curtis,  B.  S.2 Deputy  State  Chemist 

Omar  W.  Ford,  A.  B.2 Deputy- State  Chemist 

Herman  J.  Nimitz.  B.  S.2.. Deputy  State  Chemist 
J.  Howard  Roop,  B.  S.2... .Deput;-  State  Chemist 

Samuel  F.  Thornton,  B.  S.2 .... 

Deputy  State  Chemist 

Otis  S.  Roberts,  B.  S.2 

Chief  Inspector  State  Chemist's  Department 

Glen  G.  Carter,  B.  S.2 

Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

Benjamn  Fr  Catherwood  2 

Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

Wlliam  B.  Tiedt  

Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

VETERINARY  SCIENCE 
Robert  A.  Craig,  D.  V.  M.,  Chief 
David  B.  Clark,  D.  M.  C... Associate  Veterinarian 

Lawrence  C.  Kigin,  D.  V.  M 

Associate  Veterinarian 

George  N.  Roberts,  D.  V.  M 

Associate  Veterinarian 

Rex  A.  Whiting,  D.  V.  M 

Associate  in  Animal  Pathology 
Frank  I,  Cason,  B.  S... Ass’t  in  Serum  Production 

Leo  P.  Doyle,  B.  S Ass’t  in  Animal  Pathology 

Leslie  R.  George,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Animal  Pathology 
Fred  L.  Walkey,  D.  V.  M Ass’t  Veterinarian 

DETAILED  BY  U.  S.  DEPARTMENT  OF 
AGRICULTURE 

Cereal  and  Forage  Crop  Insect  Investigations 
John  J.  Davis,  B.  S..  Entomological 
Assistant  in  Charge 

John  M.  Aldrich,  Ph.  D.,  Entomological  Assistant 

Herman  J.  Hart,  B.  S Scientific  Assistant 

Wesley  O.  Hollister,  B.  S... Scientific  Assistant 

Dean  .A.  Ricker.  B.  S Scientific  Assistant 

Chester  F.  Turner,  B.  S Scientific  Assistant 

Seed  Testing 

Anna  M.  Lute,  M.  A Seed  Analyst 


1 In  charge  of  Fertilizer  and  Feeding  Stuff  Control 

2 Connected  with  Fertilizer  and  Feeding  Stuff  Control 


FATTENING  WESTERN  LAMBS 

1917-1918 

J.  H.  Skinner  C.  G.  Starr 


SUMMARY 
PART  I 

CORN  SILAGE  ALONE  VS.  CORN  SILAGE  AND  VARYING 
AMOUNTS  OF  DRY  ROUGHAGE 

Lambs  receiving  corn  silage  alone  as  roughage  did  not  consume  as 
much  dry  matter  as  lambs  receiving  clover  hay  in  addition  to  corn  silage 
as  roughage. 

Lambs  fed  corn  silage,  and  clover  hay  nights  and  mornings  gained 
22  per  cent,  more  rapidly  than  lambs  fed  silage  alone  as  roughage  and 
8.0  per  cent,  more  rapidly  than  lambs  fed  corn  silage*  and  clover  hay  every 
fifth  day. 

Lambs  fed  clover  hay  every  fifth  day  in  addition  to  corn  silage  gained 
13  per  cent,  more  rapidly  than  lambs  fed  corn  silage  alone  as  roughage. 

Lambs  fed  corn  silage  alone  as  roughage  required  an  expenditure 
for  feed  of  $14.38  per  hundred  pounds  of  gain,  those  fed  clover  hay 
once  every  fifth  day  in  addition  to  corn  silage  required  an  expenditure  of 
$13.19  and  those  receiving  clover  hay  nights  and  mornings  in  addition  to 
corn  silage,  required  an  expenditure  of  $13.18  per  hundred  pounds  of 
gain. 

The  lambs  fed  silage  alone  were  valued  at  $16.90  per  hundred  pounds 
and  returned  a loss  of  40  cents  per  lamb.  The  lambs  receiving  clover  hay 
once  every  fifth  day  in  addition  to  corn  silage,  were  valued  at  $16.85  and 
returned  a loss  of  10  cents  per  head.  The  lambs  receiving  clover  hay 
nights  and  mornings  in  addition  to  corn  silage  as  roughage,  were  valued 
at  $17.00  per  hundred  pounds  and  returned  a profit  of  10  cents  per  lamb. 

PART  II 

COMPARISON  OF  PROTEIN  SUPPLEMENTS 

There  was  practically  no  difference  in  the  average  gain  per  lamb  in 
any  of  the  lots  receiving  different  protein  concentrates  as  supplements. 

The  lambs  fed  linseed  oil  meal  consumed  an  average  daily  feed  of 
3.26  pounds,  the  lambs  receiving  cottonseed  meal,  3.28  pounds  and  the 
lambs  fed  ground  soybeans,  3.29  pounds  per  lamb. 

The  lambs  receiving  linseed  oil  meal  required  389  pounds  of  concen- 
trates and  764  pounds  of  roughage  per  hundred  pounds  of  gain,  costing 
$13.22.  The  lambs  fed  cottonseed  meal  required  for  the  same  amount  of 
gain,  393  pounds  of  concentrates  and  776  pounds  of  roughage  at  a cost 
of  $13.18.  The  lambs  fed  ground  soybeans  required  393  pounds  of  con- 
centrates and  781  pounds  of  roughage  per  hundred  pounds  of  gain  at  a 
cost  of  $13.41. 

The  lambs  fed  linseed  oil  meal  were  valued  at  $17.25  per  hundred 
pounds  and  returned  a net  profit  of  29  cents  per  head,  the  lambs  receiving 
cottonseed  meal  were  valued  at  $17.00  and  returned  a net  profit  of  10 
cents;  the  lambs  fed  ground  soybeans  were  valued  at  $17.00  and  returned 
a net  profit  of  three  cents  per  lamb. 


4 


PART  III 

HOMINY  FEED  VS.  SHELLED  CORN 

Each  lot  of- lambs  gained  exactly  the  same  amount  in  weight. 

The  daily  consumption  of  concentrates  and  corn  silage  was  slightly 
lower  with  lambs  fed  hominy  feed. 

For  ioo  pounds  of  increase  in  live  weight,  388  pounds  of  concen- 
trates and  747  pounds  of  roughage,  costing  $12.99,  were  required  with 
lambs  fed  hominy  feed.  For  the  same  gain  with  the  lambs  fed  shelled 
corn,  393  pounds  of  concentrates  and  776  pounds  of  roughage,  costing 
$13.18,  were  required. 

The  lambs  receiving  hominy  feed  were  valued  at  $17.10  and  returned 
a net  profit  per  head  of  23  cents.  The  lambs  fed  shelled  corn  were  val- 
ued at  $17.00  and  returned  a net  profit  of  10  cents  per  head. 

PART  IV 

PARTIAL  VS.  CONTINUOUS  GRAIN  FEEDING 

The  lambs  fed  without  corn  for  the  first  40  days  made  a total  gain 
approximately  the  same  as  lambs  fed  grain  from  the  beginning  of  the 
feeding  period. 

The  lambs  receiving  a partial  feed  of  corn  consumed  15  per  cent, 
more  of  the  comparatively  cheaper  feeds  as  corn  silage  and  clover  hay 
than  those  receiving  corn  throughout  the  feeding  period. 

As  an  average  for  the  90-day  feeding  period,  the  lambs  fed  a partial 
feed  of  corn  consumed  a daily  feed  per  lamb  of  3.42  pounds.  The  lambs 
fed  corn  continuously  consumed  an  average  feed  of  3.28  pounds  per  day. 

For  the  production  of  100  pounds  of  mutton,  the  lambs  receiving  a 
partial  feed  of  corn  required  326  pounds  of  concentrates  and  903  pounds 
of  roughage,  costing  $12.81 ; for  the  lambs  fed  corn  continuously,  393 
pounds  of  concentrates  and  776  pounds  of  roughage  costing  $13.18  were 
required. 

The  lambs  fed  corn  during  a part  of  the  feeding  period  were  valued 
at  $16.85  per  hundred  pounds  and  returned  an  a*verage  profit  of  six  cents 
per  head.  The  lambs  receiving  corn  continuously  were  valued  at  $17.00 
per  hundred  pounds  and  returned  a net  profit  of  10  cents  per  head. 

PART  V 

INFLUENCE  OF  SHEARING 

The  shorn  lambs  gained  only  0.182  pounds  daily  per  lamb  during  the 
month  in  which  they  were  shorn,  while  the  wooled  lambs  gained  0.301 
pounds  daily  per  lamb  during  the  same  period. 

As  an  average  of  the  entire  feeding  period  of  90  days,  the  shorn  lambs 
gained  approximately  only  85  per  cent,  as  rapidly  as  the  wooled  lambs. 

The  average  clip  per  lamb  was  3.14  pounds  of  short  stapled  wool 
and  sold  for  50  cents  per  pound. 

The  feed  required  per  hundred  pounds  of  gain  in  the  shorn  lot  was 
464  pounds  of  concentrates  and  897  pounds  of  roughage  at  a cost  of 


5 


$15.52;  in  the  wooled  lot,  393  pounds  of  concentrates  and  776  pounds  of 
roughage,  costing  $13.18  were  required  per  hundred  pounds  of  gain. 

The  shorn  lambs  were  valued  at  $14.75  Per  hundred  pounds  with  a 
loss  of  $1.19  per  lamb.  The  wooled  lambs  were  valued  at  $17.00  per  hun- 
dred pounds  and  returned  a profit  of  10  cents  per  head. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  feeders  of -western  lambs  and  sheep  in  the  corn  belt  states  suf- 
fered a series  of  misfortunes  during  the  winter  of  1917-18.  The  profits 
received  from  feeding  sheep  the  last  few  years  induced  many  new  men 
to  change  from  cattle  feeding  to  sheep  feeding.  The  profits  realized  by 
sheepmen  who  fed  during  the  winter  of  1916-17,  buying  their  feeders 
at  the  highest  prices  on  record  up  to  that  time,  especially  had  a very  great 
influence  upon  the  increased  demand  for  feeding  sheep  and  lambs  in  the 
fall  of  1917.  The  increased  demand  occasioned  a continuous  rise  in 
prices  until  at  different  livestock  markets  for  feeding  sheep  and  lambs, 
the  prices  paid  were  the  highest  on  record. 

After  the  feeder  had  purchased  his  stock,  he  found  that  the  prices  of 
feeds  were  also  the  highest  that  have  ever  been  demanded  or  paid.  The 
bulk  of  the  corn  used  in  feeding  was  high  in  moisture  content  and  con- 
sequently lower  in  feeding  value  than  in  average  years.  The  prices  of 
protein  concentrates  and  hay  had  been  advanced  to  extremely  high  levels. 
With  the  extremely  high  prices  of  feeds,  the  cost  of  producing  mutton 
was  the  highest  that  had  ever  been  encountered  in  the  Corn  Belt. 

Sheep  feeders  found  a very  unsatisfactory  market  when  the  lambs 
or  sheep  were  ready  to  sell.  The  buyers  discriminated  very  sharply 
against  lambs  that  came  to  market  weighing  over  80  pounds.  The  de- 
mand for  mutton  was  not  keen  and  many  feeders  were  forced  to  accept 
prices  that  were  often  a dollar  or  more  per  hundred  pounds  less  than  the 
purchase  price. 

These  conditions  were  encountered  by  this  station  in  feeding  and 
marketing  lambs  fed  in  1917-18.  For  the  first  time  since  lambs  have  been 
fed  at  this  station  they  were  fed  with  a lack  of  margin  and  at  an  exces- 
sive cost  of  production.  Under  these  conditions,  no  financial  profit  could 
be  expected  in  the  lamb  feeding  experimental  work  herein  reported. 

OBJECT 

The  object  of  the  experimental  lamb  feeding  trials  at  the  Purdue 
University  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  conducted  during  the  fall 
and  winter  of  1917-18  was  to  obtain  additional  information  on  the  com- 
parative feeding  value  of  different  concentrated  feeds  and  the  different 
systems  of  feeding  and  management.  The  detailed  objects  were  as  fol- 
lows : 1 — a comparison  of  the  value  of  corn  silage  as  sole  roughage  and 

in  combination  with  clover  hay,  the  hay  either  fed  once  every  fifth  day 
or  fed  twice  daily;  2 — a comparison  of  cottonseed  meal,  linseed  oil  meal 
and  ground  soybeans  as  protein  concentrates  for  supplements ; 3 — a com- 
parison of  the  relative  feeding  value  of  hominy  feed  and  shelled  corn ; 
4 — a comparison  of  a system  of  feeding  in  which  no  corn  was  fed  in  the 
first  part  of  the  feeding  period,  and  one  in  which  corn  was  fed  from  the 


6 


beginning  of  the  feeding  period;  5 — a comparison  of  a system  in  which 
the  lambs  were  clipped  shortly  before  marketing,  and  one  in  which  the 
lambs  were  not  clipped. 

PLAN 

The  plan  of  the  work  was  to  secure  strong,  vigorous  western  feeding 
lambs  in  sufficient  numbers  to  allow  the  discarding  of  any  cull  lambs  in 
order  to  have  a flock  as  nearly  uniform  as  possible.  The  flock  was  divided 
into  eight  lots  of  25  lambs  each.  All  eight  lots  were  as  nearly  uniform  as 
possible  as  to  size,  condition,  quality,  thrift,  sex  and  breeding. 

The  following  rations  were  fed : 

Tot  1.  Shelled  corn,  cottonseed  meal  and  corn  silage. 

Lot  2.  Shelled  corn,  cottonseed  meal,  corn  silage  and  clover  hay. 
(lambs  shorn  two  weeks  before  they  went  to  market.)  . 

Lot  3.  Hominy  feed,  cottonseed  meal,  corn  silage  and  clover  hay. 

Lot  4.  Cottonseed  meal,  corn  silage,  clover  hay,  shelled  corn  (fed 
last  50  days). 

Lot  5.  Shelled  corn,  linseed  oil  meal,  corn  silage  and  clover  hay. 

Lot  6.  Shelled  corn,  cottonseed  meal,  corn  silage  and  one  feed  of 
clover  hay  every  fifth  day. 

Lot  7.  Shelled  corn,  cottonseed  meal,  corn  silage  and  clover  hay. 

Lot  8.  Shelled  corn,  ground  soybeans,  corn  silage  and  clover  hay. 

In  Lot  4,  the  cottonseed  meal  was  fixed  at  0.25  pound  per  lamb  daily. 
In  other  lots,  the  protein  concentrate  was  fed  in  the  proportion  of  one 
part  to  seven  parts  of  corn  or  hominy  meal. 

SHELTER,  FEEDING  YARDS  AND  WATER  SUPPLY 

The  lambs  were  all  housed  in  a shed,  open  to  the  south.  This  shed 
is  a part  of  the  experimental  feeding  plant  at  this  station.  Each  lot  of  25 
lambs  occupied  a shed  14  by  16  feet  open  on  the  south  side  and  an  un- 
covered lot  14  by  14  feet.  No  pavement  of  any  kind  was  used  in  the 
shed  or  lot.  A few  times  during  the  feeding  period,  the  blowing  in  of 
large  quantities  of  snow  necessitated  the  bedding  of  the  covered  lots  with 
wheat  straw  but  no  bedding  was  used  in  the  open  lots. 

Water  was  supplied  to  each  lot  of  lambs  from  the  city  water  service 
regularly  twice  daily  mornings  and  nights  in  galvanized  iron  tubs,  which 
were  emptied  and  cleaned  at  least  once  daily.  During  the  extremely  cold 
weather,  the  tubs  were  emptied  shortly  after  each  feeding  to  prevent  the 
water  freezing  in  them. 

WEIGHTS 

Individual  weights  were  taken  of  each  lamb  for  three  consecutive 
days  at  the  beginning  and  end  of  the  trial  and  also  every  thirtieth  day 
during  the  trial.  The  average  of  the  three  consecutive  weights  at  the 
beginning  and  end  of  the  trial  was  used  as  the  initial  and  final  weights. 
In  addition,  the  lots  were  weighed  in  groups  every  tenth  day  during  the 
feeding  period.  The  identity  of  each  lamb  was  known  by  a numbered 
aluminum  tag  fastened  in  the  ear.  All  weights  were  taken  after  the 
lambs  had  finished  eating  in  the  morning. 


7 


METHOD  OF  FEEDING 

All  grain  and  concentrates  with  the  exception  of  the  cottonseed  meal 
in  Lot  4,  were  fed  in  narrow  flat-bottomed  grain  troughs.  The  grain  was 
fed  at  approximately  6 :oo  a.  m.  and  4 :3c  p.  m.  After  the  lambs  had  con- 
sumed the  concentrates,  the  corn  silage  was  fed ; shortly  after,  the  lots 
receiving  hay  were  fed  hay  placed  in  hay  racks. 

The  cottonseed  meal,  ground  soybeans  and  linseed  oil  meal  with  the 
exception  of  Lot  4,  were  mixed  thoroughly  with  the  grain.  In  Lot  4,  the 
cottonseed  was  mixed  with  the  silage,  since  for  a considerable  time,  this 
lot  received  no  grain. 

When  starting  the  lambs  on  grain,  oats  were  used  to  accustom  the 
lambs  to  a grain  ration.  At  the  beginning  of  the  feeding  period,  consid- 
erable difficulty  was  experienced  in  securing  shelled  corn  of  the  1917  / 
crop  and  more  oats  were  used  in  this  trial  than  in  former  trials.  After 
the  lambs  were  eating  oats,  shelled  corn  was  added  gradually.  All  oats 
were  withdrawn  after  a short  time  and  the  protein  concentrates  were 
also  gradually  introduced.  In  three  weeks,  the  lambs  were  consuming 
the  desired  amount  of  grain. 

Throughout  the  feeding,  corn  silage  was  fed  in  such  amounts  as 
was  readily  consumed  within  a reasonable  time.  The  amount  of  hay 
fed  was  governed  by  the  appetites  of  the  lambs.  Any  feed  refused  by 
the  lambs  was  weighed  and  such  amount  was  deducted  from  the  amount 
fed.  In  cases  where  the  feed  was  refused,  the  amount  was  reduced  at 
the  next  feed. 

DESCRIPTION  OF  LAMBS 

The  lambs  used  in  this  trial  were  choice  light  weight  lambs,  pur- 
chased on  the  Chicago  live  stock  market,  October  17,  1917.  Two  hun- 
dred and  twenty-five  lambs  were  purchased.  They  were  largely  of 
Hampshire-Merino  crosses  and  were  bred  and  grown  in  Idaho.  When 
purchased,  the  flock  was  fairly  uniform  in  size  and  condition.  Owing  to 
general  weather  conditions  and  comparative  safety  from  scab  exposure, 
the  lambs  were  not  dipped.  On  October  27,  eight  lots  of  25  lambs  each, 
were  selected  for  experimental  feeding.  The  total  cost,  including  buying 
and  shipping  charges,  of  the  lambs  when  placed  on  experimental  rations 
was  $18.55  Per  hundred  pounds. 

METHOD  OF  VALUING  THE  LAMBS 

The  initial  cost  of  the  lambs  at  the  beginning  of  the  trial  ($18.55) 
was  taken  as  the  initial  value.  Final  values  were  placed  upon  the  differ- 
ent lots  at  the  close  of  the  experiment  by  Chas.  H.  Shurte,  of  the  Knollin 
Commission  Company,  Chicago,  111.  The  final  values  as  reported  in  this 
bulletin  are  on  the  basis  of  the  Chicago  prices  fixed  by  Mr.  Shurte,  less 
75  cents  per  hundred  to  cover  cost  of  shipping.  All  financial  statements 
are  based  upon  these  prices. 

FEEDS  AND  PRICES 

The  rations  fed  were  composed  of  various  combinations  of  shelled 
corn,  hominy  meal,  cottonseed  meal,  linseed  oil  meal,  ground  soybeans, 
corn  silage  and  clover  hay. 


8 


The  oats  used  in  getting  the  lambs  on  feed  were  of  excellent  quality 
and  of  the  1917  crop;  also  the  corn  used  was  of  the  1917  crop;  the  cot- 
tonseed meal  used  was  choice  and  of  the  41  per  cent,  protein  grade.  The 
linseed  oil  meal  was  also  choice  and  was  guaranteed  34  per  cent,  pro- 
tein. The  soybeans  were  coarsely  ground  and  of  excellent  quality 
grown  on  the  University  Farm  in  1917.  The  hominy  feed  used 
was  the  by-product  of  the  1916  crop  of  corn  and  was  an  excellent  grade 
of  feed.  The  corn  silage  was  made  from  a field  thaf  would  yield  ap- 
proximately 30  bushels  of  corn  per  acre  and  put  into  the  silo  somewhat 
green,  owing  to  danger  of  frosts.  When  fed,  it  was  of  good  appearance, 
quality  and  odor.  No  difficulty  was  experienced  in  the  lambs  consuming 
the  silage.  The  clover  hay  was  choice;  a portion  of  it  contained  a small 
amount  of  timothy  but  was  consumed  eagerly  by  the  lambs. 

Owing  to  a lack  of  market  for  corn  of  the  1917  crop  in  LaFayette 
for  a considerable  portion  of  the  feeding  period,  and  to  a very  wide  range 
in  prices  paid  when  a market  was  opened,  the  price  for  corn  fed  in  the 
trial  could  not  be  based  upon  the  average  market  price  as  formerly  had 
been  the  custom.  The  fixed  price  of  $1.12  per  bushel  has  been  used  in 
making  financial  statements.  It  is  thought  that  this  price  is  reasonable 
for  the  period  of  time  from  October  28  to  January  26.  The  oats  were 
valued  at  70  cents  per  bushel  and  the  cottonseed  meal  used  cost  $53.50 
per  ton  delivered  at  LaFayette.  Linseed  oil  meal  was  purchased  at 
$60.00  per  ton  and  the  same  price  was  placed  upon  ground  soybeans  and 
hominy  feed.  The  corn  silage  was  valued  at  $7.50  per  ton  and  the  clover 
hay  at  $25.00  per  ton.  All  financial  statements  are  based  upon  the  prin- 
ciple that  the  value  of  the  manure  produced  during  the  trial  offsets  the 
labor  of  feeding  and  cost  of  bedding. 

PART  I 

CORN  SILAGE  ALONE  VS.  CORN  SILAGE  AND  VARYING 
AMOUNTS  OF  DRY  ROUGHAGE 

Previous  trials  at  this  station  have  shown  that  lambs  receiving  no 
other  roughage  than  corn  silage  have  not  fed  as  well  as  those  receiving 
dry  roughage  in  addition  to  the  corn  silage.  The  lambs  have  sooner  or 
later  developed  unsteady  appetites  and  have  refused  to  consume  normal 
quantities  of  feed.  In  these  previous  trials,  it  has  been  demonstrated 
that  when  the  lambs  went  off  feed,  a feed  of  clover  hay  has  caused  a 
change  for  the  better  in  the  appetites.  It  was  felt  that  if  by  the  addition 
of  an  occasional  feed  of  clover  hay,  the  appetites  of  the  lambs  could  be 
maintained,  a very  economical  rate  of  gain  could  be  established.  In  Bul- 
letin No.  202,  “Sheep  Feeding,  VII — Fattening  Western  Lambs,”  the 
results  of  the  first  trial  in  feeding  one  feed  of  clover  hay  every  fifth  day 
as  compared  with  no  hay,  and  a continuous  hay  ration,  are  discussed. 

The  results  of  the  second  trial  are  given  in  this  bulletin. 

Three  lots  of  25  lambs  were  fed  a basal  concentrated  ration  of  seven 
parts  of  shelled  corn  and  one  part  of  cottonseed  meal.  Lot  1 received 
corn  silage  as  the  sole  roughage.  Lot  6 received  the  same  ration  except 
that  once  every  fifth  day  a feed  of  clover  hay  was  substituted  for  a feed 
of  corn  silage.  Lot  7 received  corn  silage  and  clover  hay  daily,  morning 
and  night. 


9 


Owing  to  inability  to  place  the  lambs  immediately  upon  a sole  silage 
ration,  a small  amount  of  .clover  hay  was  fed  to  Lots  i and  6 for  a short 
time  after  the  experimental  feeding  was  begun.  All  hay  was  withdrawn 
from  Lot  i by  the  twenty-first  day  of  the  feeding  period  when  the  lambs 
were  on  full  feed.  The  hay  fed  to  the  lambs  in  Lot  6 every  fifth  day  was 
governed  by  their  appetites,  the  amount  varying  from  18  to  25  pounds.  The 
corn  silage  was  fed  in  all  lots  according  to  the  appetites  of  the  lambs. 
The  maximum  consumption  of  silage  daily  per  lot  in  Lot  1 was  60  pounds, 
in  Lot  6,  62  pounds,  and  44  pounds  in  Lot  7. 

After  the  first  20  days,  the  amount  of  corn  fed  daily  per  lot  was  24 
pounds  until  the  end  of  the  second  month  of  the  feeding  period,  at  which 
time,  the  amount  of  shelled  corn  was  advanced  to  28  pounds  daily.  Two 
weeks  before  the  close  of  the  feeding  trial  the  corn  was  again  advanced 
to  32  pounds  daily  per  lot.  The  lambs  in  all  lots  consumed  these  amounts 
of  corn  readily.  As  the  amount  of  corn  was  increased,  the  amount  of 
cottonseed  meal  was  also  increased  in  the  proportion  of  one  part  to  seven 
parts  of  corn.  The  amount  of  hay  fed  to  Lot  7 averaged  approximately 
16  pounds  per  lot  daily. 


Table  I. — Corn  Silage  vs.  Corn  Silage  and  Dry  Roughage  for  Fattening 
Lambs — October  28,  1917,  to  January  26,  1918 


Lot  1 

Lot  1 

5 

Lot  7 

Ration 

shelled  corn, 
cottonseed  meal, 

corn  silage. 

shelled  corn, 
cottonseed  meal, 
corn  silage, 
(clover  hay 
every  fifth  day) 

shelled  corn, 
cottonseed  meal, 

corn  silage, 
clover  hay 

Average  initial  weight 

56.0  lbs. 

56.0 

lbs. 

55.9  lbs. 

Average  final  weight 

76.8  “ 

79.4 

44 

81.2  “ 

Average  gain  per  lamb 

20.8  “ 

23.4 

“ 

25.3  “ 

Average  daily  gain 

0.231  “ 

0.26 

“ 

0.281  “ 

Average  daily  feed  per  lamb 
concentrates 

1.10  “ 

1.10 

« 

1.10  “ 

clover  hay 

0.20  “ 

0.32 

“ 

0.64  “ 

corn  silage 

1.98  “ 

1.86 

“ 

1.54  “ 

Feed  per  100  pounds  gain 
concentrates 

478.0  “ 

425.0 

(4 

393.0  “ 

clover  hay 

86.0  “ 

124.0 

44 

228.0  “ 

corn  silage 

859.0  “ 

715.0 

44 

548.0  “ 

Cost  per  100  pounds  gain 

$14.38 

$13.19 

$13.18 

Selling  value  of  lambs  in  feed  lots 

16.90 

16.85 

17.00 

Profit  or  loss  per  lamb 

-0.40 

-0.10 

+0.10 

— indicates  loss  + indicates  profit 


It  will  be  noted  in  Table  I that  the  lambs  in  all  three  lots  consumed 
3.28  pounds  as  an  average  daily  feed.  When  the  dry  matter  content  of 
the  feeds  is  considered,  however,  it  is  apparent  that  the  lambs  in  the 
lots  receiving  dry  roughage  consumed  more  food  nutrients  daily  than  the 


IO 


lambs  not  receiving  clover  hay.  During  the  last  period  of  the  90-day 
trial,  the  lambs  in  Lot  1 began  to  decrease  their  consumption  of  corn 
silage  slightly.  The  consumption  of  concentrates  was  the  same  in  all 
lots. 

The  lambs  receiving  silage  alone  as  roughage  made  an  average  gain 
of  20.8  pounds  per  lamb,  the  lambs  receiving  clover  hay  every  fifth  day 
in  addition  to  corn  silage  made  an  average  gain  of  23.4  pounds;  the 
lambs  receiving  clover  hay  morning  and  night  in  addition  to  corn  silage 
made  an  average  gain  of  25.3  pounds.  The  average  daily  gain  per  lamb 
in  Lot  i,  was  0.231  pound;  in  Lot  6,  0.26  pound;  and  in  Lot  7,  0.281 
pound.  The  total  amount  of  feed  required  per  pound  of  gain  was  pro- 
portional to  the  average  daily  gain,  the  most  rapid  gain  requiring  the 
least  amount  of  feed.  The  concentrate  requirement  for  100  pounds  of 
gain  in  Lot  7 was  393  pounds,  in  Lot  6,  425  pounds,  and  in  Lot  1,  478 
pounds.  The  feeding  of  the  maximum  amount  of  corn  silage  in  Lot  1 
as  compared  with  lesser  amounts  in  Lots  6 and  7,  did  not  apparently  re- 
sult in  any  reduction  in  either  the  amount  of  corn  or  cottonseed  meal 
required  for  100  pounds  of  gain.  The  roughage  required  per  100  pounds 
of  gain  in  Lot  7 was  776  pounds,  in  Lot  6,  839  pounds  and  in  Lot  1,  945 
pounds. 

At  the  prevailing  prices  of  feeds,  the  cost  per  hundred  pounds  of 
gain  in  Lot  1 was  $14.38,  in  Lot  6,  $13.19,  and  in  Lot  7,  $13.18.  The 
lambs  in  Lot  1 were  valued  at  $16.90,  in  Lot  6 at  $16.85,  and  $17.00  in 
Lot  7 per  hundred  pounds.  The  lambs  receiving  corn  silage  alone  showed 
a loss  of  40  cents  per  lamb.  The  lambs  receiving  one  feed  of  clover  hay 
every  fifth  day  showed  a loss  of  10  cents  per  head.  The  lambs  receiving 
clover  hay  mornings  and  nights  in  addition  to  corn  silage  made  a profit 
of  10  cents  per  head. 

PART  II 

COMPARISON  OF  PROTEIN  SUPPLEMENTS 

For  two  years  previous  to  this  trial  at  this  station,  ground  soybeans 
have  been  compared  with  cottonseed  meal  as  protein  supplement  in  lamb 
feeding  rations.  The  trial  reported  herein  is  the  third  of  the  series.  The 
two  previous  trials  apparently  show  that  while  the  lambs  fed  ground  soy- 
beans ate  with  good  appetites  and  made  good  gains,  the  rate  and  econ- 
omy of  gains  were  never  superior  to  the  lots  receiving  cottonseed  meal 
as  their  supplement.  Owing  to  the  prices  current  for  soybeans,  when  of 
good  quality,  it  has  never  been  a good  farm  practice  to  feed  ground  soy- 
beans rather  than  cottonseed  meal.  This  year,  linseed  oil  meal  has  been 
included  in  the  comparisons. 

The  three  lots  of  lambs  were  fed  alike  except  that  Lot  5 received 
linseed  oil  meal,  Lot  7 cottonseed  meal  and  Lot  8 received  ground  soy- 
beans. The  supplement  in  each  lot  was  fed  in  the  proportion  of  one 
part  to  seven  parts  of  corn.  There  were  25  lambs  in  Lots  7 and  8 and 
24  lambs  in  Lot  5,  since  one  lamb  was  removed  on  account  of  unthrifti- 
ness. No  difference  was  observed  in  the  appetites  of  the  lambs  in  each 
lot  for  grain  and  hay,  but  the  lambs  in  Lot  5 consumed  slightly  less 
silage  daily. 


II 


Table)  II. — Comparison  of  Protein  Concentrates  as  Supplements  for 
Fattening  Lambs — October  28,  1917,  to  January  26,  1918 


Lot  5 

Lot  7 

Lot  8 

Ration 

shelled  corn, 
linseed  oil  meal, 

corn  silage, 
clover  hay 

shelled  corn, 
cottonseed  meal, 

corn'silage, 
clover  hay 

shelled  corn, 
ground  soybeans, 

corn  silage, 
clover  hay 

Average  initial  weight 

56.3  lbs. 

55.9  lbs. 

56.2  lbs. 

Average  final  weight 

81.8  “ 

81.2  “ 

81.4  “ 

Average  gain  per  lamb 

25.5  “ 

25.3  “ 

25.2  “ 

Average  daily  gain 

0.283  “ 

0.281  “ 

0.280  “ 

Average  daily  feed  per  lamb 
concentrates 
clover  hay 
corn  silage 

1.10  “ 

0.64  “ 

1.52  “ 

1.10  “ 

0.64  “ 

1.54  “ 

1.10  “ 

0.64  “ 

1.55  “ 

Feed  per  100  pounds  gain 
concentrates 
clover  hay 
corn  silage 

389.0  “ 

226.0  “ 

538.0  “ 

393.0  “ 

228.0  “ 

548.0  “ 

393.0  “ 

229.0  “ 

552.0  “ 

Cost  per  100  pounds  gain 

$13.22 

$13.18 

$13.41 

Selling  value  of  lambs  in  feed  lots 

17.25 

17.00 

17.00 

Profit  per  lamb 

0.29 

0.10 

0.03 

In  Table  II,  it  will  be  noted  that  the  lambs  in  Lot  5 made  an  average 
gain  per  lamb  of  25.5  pounds;  in  Lot  7 the  average  gain  during  the  90 
days  was  25.3  pounds ; in  Lot  8,  the  gain  per  lamb  was  25.2  pounds.  The 
average  daily  gain  was  0.283  pound  in  Lot  5,  0.281  pound  in  Lot  7,  and 
0.280  pound  in  Lot  8.  The  lambs  in  Lot  5 ate  a daily  ration  of  3.26 
pounds  per  head;  in  Lot  7,  the  average  daily  ration  was  3.28  pounds,  and 
in  Lot  8,  3.29  pounds. 

The  lambs  fed  linseed  oil  meal  required  389  pounds  of  concentrates 
and  764  pounds  of  roughage  for  the  production  of  100  pounds  of  mutton. 
The  lambs  fed  cottonseed  meal  required  393  pounds  of  concentrates 
and  776  pounds  of  roughage  for  100  pounds  of  gain.  The  lambs  fed 
ground  soybeans  required  a total  of  393  pounds  of  concentrates  and  781 
pounds  of  roughage  for  the  production  of  100  pounds  of  mutton.  The 
linseed  oil  meal,  on  the  basis  of  this  trial,  apparently  effected  a saving  of 
four  pounds  of  concentrates  and  12  pounds  of  roughage  in  comparison 
with  cottonseed  meal  and  four  pounds  of  concentrates  and  17  pounds  of 
roughage  in  comparison  with  ground  soybeans. 

It  will  be  noted  that  the  lambs  fed  linseed  oil  meal  were  valued  at  25 
cents  per  hundred  pounds  more  than  the  other  two  lots. 

At  the  prevailing  prices  of  feeds,  the  cost  per  hundred  pounds  of 
gain  in  Lot  5 was  $13.22;  in  Lot  7,  $13.18;  in  Lot  8,  $13.41.  The  aver- 
age lamb  in  Lot  5 returned  a -profit  of  29  cents;  the  average  profit  per 
lamb  in  Lot  7 was  10  cents,  and  that  in  Lot  8 was  three  cents. 

Unless  cull  soybeans  can  be  used,  it  will  not  be  profitable  at  present 
prices  of  protein  concentrates,  to  use  ground  soybeans  as  supplement  in 
fattening  lambs. 


12 


PART  III 

HOMINY  FEED  VS.  SHELLED  CORN 

The  demand  for  substitutes  for  corn  to  use  in  fattening  animals  has 
become  very  important.  The  high  prices  and  scarcity  of  corn  during  the 
summer  of  1917  and  the  scarcity  of  good  feeding  corn  in  many  counties 
in  the  State  during  the  winter  of  1917-18  caused  serious  difficulties  in 
securing  satisfactory  corn  for  fattening  live  stock.  As  one  of  the  im- 
portant by-products  from  the  rapidly  increasing  manufacture  of  human 
foods  from  corn,  hominy  feed  offers  a rather  large  source  of  feed.  In 
composition,  hominy  feed  is  somewhat  similar  to  corn.  For  hogs,  it  has 
been  demonstrated  to  be  an  efficient  corn  substitute.  For  information  as 
to  the  relative  feeding  value  of  hominy  feed  and  shelled  corn  for  lambs, 
two  lots  were  fed  identical  rations  of  cottonseed  meal,  silage  and  clover 
hay,  except  that  hominy  feed  was  fed  in  Lot  3 and  shelled  corn  in  Lot  7. 
The  lambs  in  both  lots  were  gradually  brought  on  feed  until  each  lot  of 
25  lambs  was  consuming  daily  24  pounds  of  hominy  feed  and  corn  re- 
spectively. At  the  beginning  of  the  third  month,  the  ration  was  increased 
to  28  pounds.  Two  weeks  prior  to  the  close  of  the  feeding  trial,  the 
amount  was  again  advanced.  It  was  found  that  the  lambs  in  Lot  3, 
receiving  hominy  feed,  would  not  consume  over  30  pounds  of  hominy 
feed  daily.  The  lambs  fed  shelled  corn  readily  consumed  32  pounds 
of  corn.  No  attempt  was  made  to  increase  the  corn  in  Lot  7 above 
32  pounds.  It  was  observed  that  the  lambs  fed  hominy  feed  uniformly 
required  from  20  to  40  minutes  longer  to  consume  the  feed.  There  was  no 
indication  of  the  hominy  feed  being  distasteful  to  the  lambs  at  any  time. 


Table:  III. — Hominy  Feed  vs.  Shelled  Corn  for  Fattening  Lambs — 
October  28,  1917,  to  January  26,  1918 


Lot  3 

Lot  7 

Ration 

hominy  feed, 

cottonseed  meal, 
corn  silage, 
clover  hay 

shelled  corn, 

cottonseed  meal, 
corn  silage, 
clover  hay 

Average  initial  weight 

56.0  lbs. 

55.9  lbs. 

Average  final  weight 

81.3  “ 

81.2  “ 

Gain  per  lamb 

25.3  “ 

25.3  “ 

Average  daily  gain 

0.281  “ 

0.281  “ 

Average  daily  feed  per  lamb 
concentrates 

1.09  “ 

1.10  “ 

clover  hay 

0.61  “ 

0.64  “ 

corn  silage 

1.46  “ 

1.54  “ 

Feed  per  100  pounds  gain 
concentrates 

388.0  “ 

- 393.0  “ 

clover  hay 

227.0 

228.0  “ 

corn  silage 

520.0  “ 

548.0  “ 

Cost  per  100  pounds  gain 

$12.99 

$13.18 

Selling  value  of  lambs  in  feed  lots 

17.10 

17.00 

Profit  per  lamb 

0.23 

0.10 

13 


It  will  be  noted  that  the  total  gain  per  lamb  in  the  two  lots  was  ex- 
actly the  same,  25.3  pounds.  The  lambs  fed  hominy  feed  ate  on  an  aver- 
age, a daily  feed  of  3.19  pounds  while  the  lambs  fed  shelled  corn  con- 
sumed 3.28  pounds  daily  per  lamb.  The  identical  gains  in  live  weight  of 
the  lambs  fed  hominy  feed  at  a less  daily  feed  consumption  as  compared 
with  the  shelled  corn  lot,  made  the  production  of  mutton  slightly  more 
economical.  The  concentrates  required  per  100  pounds  of  gain  in  Tot  3 
were  388  pounds.  The  required  amount  of  roughage  was  747  pounds. 
The  lambs  fed  shelled  corn  required  393  pounds  of  concentrates  and  776 
pounds  of  roughage.  The  lambs  fed  hominy  feed  during  this  first  trial 
required  five  pounds  of  concentrates  and  29  pounds  of  roughage  per  100 
pounds  of  gain  less  than  the  shelled  corn  lambs. 

The  selling  price  of  the  lot  fed  hominy  feed  was  $17.10  or  10  cents 
more  per  hundred  pounds  than  the  lambs  receiving  shelled  corn.  The 
profit  per  lamb  in  Lot  3 was  23  cents ; the  profit  per  lamb  in  Lot  7 was 
10  cents. 

PART  IV 

PARTIAL  VS.  CONTINUOUS  GRAIN  FEEDING 

Due  to  the  increased  cost  of  production,  it  has  been  found  desirable 
to  fatten  animals  destined  for  the  block,  as  far  as  consistent  with  gains 
and  profit,  with  a minimum  expenditure  of  concentrates  or  grain.  Such 
a practice  has  become  especially  desirable  during  the  present  war  emer- 
gency. If  lambs  could  be  fed  during  the  first  portion  of  the  feeding  per- 
iod upon  such  roughages  of  the  farm  as  corn  silage  and  clover  hay,  sup- 
plemented by  a protein  concentrate,  a valuable  amount  of  grain  needed 
for  human  consumption  or  for  the  production  of  pork  might  be  con- 
served. The  question  as  to  whether  grain  could  be  profitably  withheld 
for  the  first  part  of  the  fattening  period  in  the  case  of  western  lambs  is  a 
debatable  one.  To  obtain  information  upon  this  question,  the  Purdue 
University  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  fed  two  lots  of  lambs  dur- 
ing the  winter  of  1917-18. 

Two  lots  of  25  lambs  each  were  fed.  The  lambs  in  Lot  4 did  not 
receive  any  grain  for  the  first  40  days.  Their  daily  ration  during  this 
period  was  0.25  pound  of  cottonseed  meal  and  all  the  corn  silage  and 
clover  hay  they  desired.  Lot  7 was  fed  grain  from  the  beginning  with 
cottonseed  meal  in  the  proportions  of  one  part  to  seven  parts  of  corn.  In 
addition,  the  lambs  in  Lot  7 received  the  amounts  of  corn  silage  and  clover 
hay  that  they  would  consume  without  waste. 

At  the  end  of  40  days,  shelled  corn  was  introduced  in  the  ration  of 
Lot  4.  The  amount  was  rapidly  increased  until  the  lambs  were  receiving 
32  pounds  of  corn  daily.  Two  weeks  before  the  close  of  the  feeding  per- 
iod, the  amount  was  increased  to  36  pounds  daily.  The  amount  of  silage 
and  hay  consumed  by  Lot  4 varied  according  to  the  amount  of  grain  fed. 
During  the  40-day  no-corn  period,  the  maximum  daily  consumption  per 
lot  of  corn  silage  was  60  pounds,  and  that  of  clover  hay  was  24  pounds. 
When  corn  was  introduced,  the  daily  consumption  of  roughage  materially 
decreased.  At  the  close  of  the  feeding  trial,  the  daily  roughage  con- 
sumption was  40  pounds  of  silage  and  14  pounds  of  hay  per  lot. 


14 


Tabus  IV. — Partial  vs.  Continuous  Feed  of  Grain  for  Fattening  Lambs — 
Average  Daily  Feed  and  Average  Daily  Gain  by  Months — 
October  28,  1917,  to  January  26,  1918 


Average  daily  feed 

Partial  feed  1 

Continuous  feed  2 

First  month 

concentrates 

0.18 

0.825 

clover  hay 

0.98 

0.80 

corn  silage 

1.35 

1.15 

Second  month 

concentrates 

0.86 

1.12 

clover  hay 

0.71 

0.56 

corn  silage 

2.28 

1.71 

Third  month 

concentrates 

1.69 

1.36 

clover  hay 

0.56 

0.56 

corn  silage 

1.66 

1.76 

Average  daily  gain 

First  month 

0.253 

0.331 

Second  month 

0.228 

0.211 

Third  month 

0.353 

0.301 

1 Ration — no  corn  first  40  days,  shelled  corn  50  days,  cottonseed  meal,  corn  silage,  clover 

hay 

2 Ration — shelled  corn  (continuous)  cottonseed  meal,  corn  silage,  clover  hay 


Upon  studying  Table  IV,  it  will  be  noted  that  the  average  daily 
feed  per  lamb  in  Lot  4 the  first  month  was  2.51  pounds,  for  the  second 
month  3.85  pounds,  and  for  the  third  month  3.91  pounds.  The  average 
daily  feed  consumption  per  lamb  in  Lot  7 for  the  first  month  was  2.775 
pounds,  for  the  second  month  3.39  pounds,  and  3.68  pounds  for  the  third 
month.  Apparently  the  lambs  fed  grain  from  the  beginning  of  the  ex- 
periment went  on  feed  faster  than  those  not  receiving  grain.  However, 
in  the  two  succeeding  months  the  daily  consumption  per  lamb  in  Lot  4 
was  superior  to  that  of  the  lambs  in  Lot  7. 

Upon  noting  the  average  daily  gain  per  lamb  per  month  the  influence 
of  the  superior  feed  consumption  is  apparent.  The  lambs  fed  corn  con- 
tinuously outgained  the  lambs  fed  no  corn  the  first  month,  when  the  feed 
consumption  was  in  their  favor.  When  the  daily  feed  consumption  was 
greater  in  Lot  4 than  in  Lot  7,  the  advantage  in  daily  gains  changed  to 
the  lot  of  lambs  fed  a partial  feed  of  corn. 


i5 


Table  V. — Partial  vs.  Continuous  Feed  of  Grain  for  Fattening  Lambs — 
October  28 , 1917,  to  January  26,  1918 


Lot  4 

Lot  7 

Ration 

no  corn 
first  40  days, 
shelled  corn 

50  days, 

cottonseed  meal, 
corn  silage, 
clover  hay 

shelled  corn 
(continuous) 

cottonseed  meal, 
corn  silage, 
clover  hay 

Average  initial  weight 

56.0  lbs. 

55.9  lbs. 

Average  final  weight 

81.0  “ 

81.2  “ 

Average  gain  per  lamb 

25.0  “ 

25.3  “ 

Average  daily  gain 

0.278  “ 

0.281  “ 

Average  daily  feed  per  lamb 
concentrates 

0.91  “ 

1.10  “ 

clover  hay 

0.75  “ 

0.64  “ 

corn  silage 

1.76  “ 

1.54  “ 

Feed  per  100  pounds  gain 
concentrates 

326.0  “ 

393.0  “ 

clover  hay 

269.0  “ 

228.0  “ 

corn  silage 

634.0  “ 

548.0  “ 

Cost  per  IOO  pounds  gain 

$12.81 

$13.18 

Selling  value  of  lambs  in  feed  lots 

16.85 

17.00 

Profit  per  lamb 

0.06  “ 

0.10  “ 

The  average  daily  feed  consumption  of  the  lambs  fed  a partial  feed 
of  corn  throughout  the  entire  90  days  was  3.42  pounds,  while  that  of  the 
lambs  fed  grain  from  the  start  was  3.28  pounds.  The  average  daily  gain 
per  lamb  in  Lot  4 was  slightly  less  than  that  of  Lot  7,  being  0.278  pound 
as  opposed  to  0.281  pound.  The  total  gain  per  lamb  in  Lot  7 was  25.3 
pounds  and  in  Lot  4 was  25  pounds.  The  feed  requirement  per  hundred 
pounds  of  gain  in  Lot  4 was  326  pounds  of  concentrates  and  903  pounds 
of  roughage.  In  Lot  7,  the  lambs  required  393  pounds  of  concentrates  and 
776  pounds  of  roughage  for  each  100  pounds  of  gain.  The  cost  per  hun- 
dred pounds  gain  in  Lot  4 was  $12.81  and  in  Lot  7 $13.18. 

The  lambs  in  Lot  4 were  valued  at  $16.85  Per  hundred  pounds,  the 
lambs  in  Lot  7 were  valued  at  $17.00.  The  profit  per  lamb  in  Lot  4 was 
six  cents,  while  the  profit  per  lamb  in  Lot  7 was  10  cents. 


i6 


PART  V 

INFLUENCE  OF  SHEARING 

The  practice  of  shearing  fattening  western  lambs  at  different  times 
in  the  fattening  period  has  been  adopted  by  a considerable  number  of 
lamb  feeders.  For  many  years,  the  practice  of  shearing  lambs  in  March 
and  April  has  been  rather  common.  The  lambs  so  managed,  have  been 
destined  for  April  or  May  markets.  More  recently,  the  practice  of  clip- 
ping the  lambs  in  the  fall  just  previous  to  starting  them  on  feed,  has  been 
used.  Owing  to  the  high  prices  of  wool  and  the  supposed  stimulating 
effect -of  clipping,  some  feeders  think  that  clipping  lambs  a short  time 
prior  to  marketing  is  profitable. 

Last  year  (the  winter  of  1916-17),  this  station  clipped  two  lots  of 
lambs  just  previous  to  placing  on  feed.  It  was  found  in  this  trial  that 
the  clipped  lambs  did  not  gain  as  rapidly,  made  less  economical  gains  and 
did  not  return  as  much  profit  as  the  wooled  lambs. 

In  this  bulletin  is  reported  a trial  in  which  one  lot  of  lambs  was 
shorn  two  weeks  previous  to  marketing.  Two  lots  of  25  lambs  each  were 
fed  exactly  the  same  ration  of  shelled  corn,  cottonseed  meal,  corn  silage 
and  clover  hay.  Upon  January  11,  1918,  the  lambs  of  Lot  2 were  shorn. 
Prior  to  the  shearing,  both  lots  of  lambs  were  sheltered  in  the  same  shed. 
After  clipping,  the  lambs  in  Lot  2 were  housed  at  night  in  a barn  on  ac- 
count of  severely  cold  weather,  but  were  allowed  to  run  in  the  open  shed 
and  lot  during  the  day. 

Previous  to  the  shearing,  both  lots  of  lambs  were  receiving  28  pounds 
of  shelled  corn  daily  per  lot.  After  shearing,  the  corn  was  increased  to 
32  pounds  per  lot.  The  shorn  lambs  consumed  this  amount  fairly  readily 
but  would  not  consume  the  same  amount  of  corn  silage  as  before  the  in- 
crease in  grain.  As  a result,  the  average  daily  feed  per  lamb  in  Lot  2 
was  decreased.  The  wooled  lambs  in  Lot  7 consumed  the  increased 
amount  of  grain  without  any  decrease  in  their  consumption  of  roughage. 

The  amount  of  wool  shorn  from  the  lambs  in  Lot  2 was  3.14  pounds 
per  lamb.  The  wool  was  of  short  staple  and  was  sold  for  50  cents  per 
pound. 


Table;  VI. — Influence  of  Shearing  on  Fattening  Lambs — Average  Gains 
by  Months,  February  28,  1917,  to  January  26,  1918 


Lot  2 

Lot  7 

clipped  lambs 
shorn  Jan.  1 1,  1918 

wooled  lambs 

First  month 

Oct.  28  to  Nov.  27 

0.28 

0.331 

Second  month 

Nov.  27  to  Dec.  27 

0.251 

0.211 

Third  month 

Dec.  27  to  Jan.  26 

0.182 

0.301 

1 7 


It  will  be  observed  in  Table  VI  that  the  two  lots  of  lambs  prior  to 
the  shearing  of  Lot  2,  gained  somewhat  the  same  and  that  Lot  2 had 
made  a very  good  average  daily  gain  during  the  month  preceding  the  one 
in  which  the  lambs  were  shorn.  During  the  third  month,  the  average 
daily  gain  per  lamb  in  Lot  2 dropped  to  the  low  gain  of  0.182  pound  while 
the  lambs  in  Lot  7 averaged  a daily  gain  of  0.301  pound.  Apparently 
the  shearing  of  the  lambs  caused  a very  large  decrease  in  gains. 


Table  VII. — Influence  of  Shearing  on  Fattening  Lambs — October  28, 
1917,  to  January  26,  1918 


Lot  2 1 

Lot  7 1 

Clipped  lambs 

shorn  Jan.  11,  1 b 1 8, 
two  weeks  before 
close  of  trial 

wooled  lambs 

Average  initial  weight 

56.2  lbs. 

55.9  lbs. 

Average  final  weight 

77.52  “ 

81.2  “ 

Average  gain  per  lamb 

21.32  “ 

25.3  “ 

Average  daily  gain 

0.238  “ 

0.281  “ 

Average  daily  feed  per  lamb 
concentrates 

1.10  “ 

1.10  “ 

clover  hay 

0.64  “ 

0.64  “ 

corn  silage 

1.49  “ 

1.54  “ 

Feed  per  100  pounds  gain 
concentrates 

464.0  “ 

393.0  “ 

clover  hay 

270.0  “ 

228.0  “ 

corn  silage 

627.0  “ 

548.0  “ 

Cost  per  IOO  pounds  gain 

$15.52 

$13.18 

Selling  value  of  lambs  in  feed  lots 

14.75 

17.00 

Profit  or  loss  per  lamb 

-1.192 

+0.10 

1 Ration — shelled  corn,  cottonseed  meal,  clover  hay  and  corn  silage 

2 Includes  3.14  pounds  wool  at  50  cents  per  pound 


The  average  daily  amount  of  feed  consumed  by  the  lambs  in  Lot  2 
throughout  the  90-day  feeding  period  was  3.23  pounds  while  the  lambs 
of  Lot  7 consumed  daily  3.28  pounds  per  lamb.  The  average  daily  gain 
per  lamb  in  the  shorn  lot  was  0.238  pound,  while  the  lambs  in  the  un- 
shorn lot  gained  0.281  pound  each.  It  required  464  pounds  of  concen- 
trates and  897  pounds  of  roughage  to  produce  100  pounds  of  increase  in 
live  weight  in  Lot  2.  The  lambs  in  Lot  7 required  only  393  pounds  of 
concentrates  and  776  pounds  of  roughage  for  the  same  amount  of  gain. 
At  the  prevailing  prices  of  feeds,  the  gains  in  the  shorn  lot  cost  $15.52 
per  hundred  pounds ; the  cost  per  hundred  pounds  of  gain  in  the  wooled 
lot  was  $13.18. 

The  clipped  lambs  were  valued  at  $14.75  Per  hundred  pounds;  their 
wool  sold  for  50  cents  per  pound  and  the  lot  returned  a loss  of  $1.19  per 
lamb.  The  wooled  lambs  were  valued  at  $17.00  and  returned  a profit  of 
10  cents  per  head. 


Table  VIII. — Summary  of  Lamb  Feeding  Fxperiment,  October  28,  1917,  to  January  26,  1918  (90  days) 


18 


^Q 

jO 

■* 

IQ 

O 

IO 

IQ 

OO 

tC 

LQ 

8 

cd 

CP 

SO- 

rH 

8 

t>. 

TT* 

23  $ 


OOOWMWWO 
oior- i co  i— iS5o5i> 

t—  0005rHCOCP05'OI 
eg  1— I H eg  05  05 

rH eg 


qiqco 

HOH 


• eo  >> 

-e  -sSifS 

"oo>«; 

>>a> 
© % 2 


8 


$ 


o 

06  Tii 


eg 

CO  H 
IQ  00 


O O IQCCO 

IQ  OWN 

r—  co  t>- 

00  eg  co  ^ ^ 

T— I T— I CO 


i-H  o rH 


-0  « fe 

rrt  a>  be  es 

Sgl-’S’S 

5 §2  g c t 

m o is 


8 


3 

- 

- 

3 

00 

eg 

3 

- - 

- 3 

0 

0 

05 

eg 

0 

O IQ 

0 0 

0 

eg 

23 

t—H 

cd 

Hji 

id  cd 

05  IQ 

CO 

0 

eg 

co 

CP 

OO 

t-- 

OO 

pH  CO 

eg  co 

t-H  CO 

rH  O t-5 


5>oo“«^ 
•So-*-:  E c > © ® 
w ^ * E © t» 

£ o*s  « 


23 

S 0(5 


0000^ 

8 3 $ £ g 

^ ^ ® 10 


IQ  O 
P-  CO 

eg  co 


o o 
eg' 

eg  p~ 

P-  i-H 
Tft 


>H  O >> 

•d  o 

•S  o « e S > 
to  c • t,  o 

a So 


a 


00 

-rH 

€/9- 


O 

0 

CO 

co  eg 

0 

0 

eg' 

8 

i-H 

CO 

23 

y-A  C5 

00 

i 

8 

eg 

XQ  O 
rH  CD 

rH  CO 


rH«OU5 

h'oh 


fe  © 


^ 03  ^ til  ® 

w ^3  p2  08  ^ 

(— < cu  . a r!  ^ ® 

o 2 ® *©  0’S 
t:  S t>  s-s  feo 

O © s ® % » 

o e§ 


23  o 

8 S 8 


00 

l-T. 

o o eg 
cp  1-i  © 

IQ  00 


O 0 

cd  tC 

00  to 

CO  05 

1— i co 


© O rH 


'd  o>  >> 
|1 o 2“  ® 


8 S 8 

60-  CO 


OOO 

eg  cd  cd 


00 

co  eg 

rH*  cd 


O O IQ 
eg  iq  o 
iQN« 

00  eg  co 


00 
05  cd 

■|  05 
ei 
CO 


31 


O CD  r* 
T— I © T— I 


a) 
^ cd 

£ S 

-2 

P © ® H 

s t a ft  . 

GO 

rQ 

3 

8 

0 0 

2 « * as 

IQ 

O 

JQ 

L» 

eg 

IQ 

eg 

O 

0 +j 

S > sa  * 

IQ  OO 

1 

cd 

cd 

<d 

0 

0 

O ^ 

«8 

eg  rH 

€59- 

£2 

CO 

iQ 

IQ 

!>• 

HOtJJ 
T— I O T—i 


*d  © 

•g  S . S* 
a g 2 * a 

«ooJ® 

■S  © a S S 


23 


o p 00 
d cd  cd 

rH  IQ  P— 

IQ 


O © IQ  © © 

rjH  IQ  cd  COO 

p-  p-  co  3J  ® 

00  eg  co  ^ 


o © 00 
rH  eg  05 

rH  © rH 


C3  rH 

£ n 

HH  Ph 


#P 

53 

bfl 

'a 

-+H 

o 


© 

ba 

’a> 

£ 


a 

<a 

05 

bo 

a 

(-1 

05 


a 

*3 

too 

>> 

*s 

05 

fcJO 

<3 

pH 

05 


'O 

05 

s 

13 

CO  _H 

S a 
o r oj 

« o g 

rrt  « 

05  _,  >> 
05 

«H  «.H 

^ 05  S ■ 
??  H O 


CQ 

a 

05  Q5  03 

SS-S 
1 0 

sh'S 

?-2  1 a S a 


a ©3 

05  P 

be  ® 

2§ 
05  O 
> « 
<1 


©3  <H 


m * 
g a 
3 o 

05  05 


i9 


•J 

» - 

1 

a 

Tp)  Tp  OO  >D  CM  CM  CD  CM 
OONOOiODOSiO 

CO  'CP  CM  IQ  © 
CD  ID  CD  CM  TO 

i— i CD  OS  CO 

•£o 

o o 

t-.  iq  cd  i— i 

fti  3t! 

O 00 

rt  fii  r-  l>  OS  05  TlH  d 

)d  cd  os  cd  cd 

CD  <=>  id  C5 
i— 1 OS  CM  | 

ID  CO  tT  ho 

CM  i—l 

Tp  i— i CD  1— 1 i— 1 

CM  CD 

CM 

CD  OP- 

e/3-  CM  CM 

CD  , 1 

to 

CM  1 

2 3 

2 2 2 

OO  CM 

CM  ’’cP  rp 

<=5  i—l  Tp  Tp  CD 

O TO  tP  CO 
oNoqo 

O O 

o o o 

Tp  O 

05  O O 

uq  tp  ^p  os  os 

r-'  tp 

CM  OS  CM 

t>5  cd 

cs  oo  cd 

Tp'  cd  CD  Tp  CD 

»5  id  o’  cd 

Os  tp 

CM 

ID  CM  co 
CM  IQ 

CO 

to 

OO  i— h CD  tP  i—i 
e/3-  CM  CO 

3 3 3 

2 3 

00  CM  -P 

Os  cs 

CM  OO  CO  >Q  TO 

O o ID  O 

O O O 

O O 

Tfi  CO  oo 

OS  05 

co  t-h  co  cd  oo 

OHPH 

»5  tp  cm 

OO  oo 

r-5  cd  oo 

t^5  cm 

cd  cd  OS  CM  CD 

t>5  id  cm’  o’ 

as  rr  iD 

CM 

CM  Tjt 
CM  10) 

co 

to 

TO'  ID  Tp  rft 

TO-  CM  CO 

rt55++ 

2 2 2 

2 2 

OO  CM  Tp 

co  u? 

CM  OS  O CM  t- 

IO  O CM  O 

o o o 

O O 

tP  COO 

O CD 

OHP-N  Os 

TO  CO  'pi  i—l 

i-5  i>5  i>5 

tp  id 

t>5  cd  cd 

os  id 

o5  cd  OS  CD  cd’ 

co’  ^5  CM  o’ 

CM  Tf  ID 

CM  i—l 

CO 

t-h  )D  CQ  t-i 

CO 

H t-- 

to 

e/3-  CM  CO 

CO  1 1 

2 3 3 

2 3 

TO  OS  CM 
05  CD  no 

h-  CM 

TO  CM  i— i OS  OS 
t>;  CM  CD  CO  <30 

IO  ID  CD  CS 

o o o 

O o 

CM  CO 

CM  'P  O CM 

Tp  CO  CM 

gs  .fi  no 

CD  OO 

id  id  os 

o5  cm’ 

o cd  o i-J  cp 

t>5  oo  i>5  o 

CM  CO 

CO 

TO  1-H  ID  CO  i—l 

H CO  1 | 

CO  ^ 1 

CM  ID 

so- 

TO-  CM  CO 

3 3 

3 2 

CO  Tp 

Tp  oo 
o oq 

CM  i—  O CM  TO 

IQ  TO  CD  CD 

TO  CO  tP  O 

O O 

O O 

CD  CD 

CM  TO  r-  cs  t— 

id  1—5 

OS*  Tp' 

o cd 

i-5  vP 

O CM  os’  OS  CD* 

cd  i-5 1-5  o 

Tp  oo 

CM 

CD  CO 
CM  CD 

CO  i— I 

e/3- 

CM  1— I 

TO  i—  IO  CO  t-h 
TO  CM  CO 

3 3 3 

2 3 

O o oo 

OS  Tp 

CO  OS  tH  rp  CM 

o IS-  CO  CO 

o o o 

O O 

OS  CO 

CM  os  iq  t>-  oq 

1-H  Tp  ts-  CM 

CO  CO  CM* 

oi  oi 

CM  ID 

t^5  CD  oc 

«>5  cm' 

CM  CM*  OS  1-5  CD 

t>5 1>5  id  o 

CO 

TO 

i—l 

TO)  i— 1 IO  Tp  i—i 
TO  CM  CO 

* J 

"*  - 

H 

oo  CM  tP 

Tp 

o id 

l D CM  Tp  OS  IO 

ID  O OS  OS 

o o o 

o o 

tp  OOO 

os  iq  Tp  cq  cq 

n q n h 

i-5  i-5  cm 

o r>5 

r-5  cd  od 

cd  cm" 

CM  id  O cd  CD 
TO  i—l  CD  ip  i—i 

-p  cd  os  i-5 

ID  IOCD 

t'-  CM 

CO 

i— l i—l  CM 

CO 

CM  CD 

to 

TO  CM  CO 

CO  | | 

O <=5  0 

2 2 

OO  CM  Tp 

OO  CO 

JO  TO  OS  ^ CM 

cd  co  oo  iq  tp 

o TO  CD  O 

O O 

tp  o oq 

uq  t>- 

CS  rp  O tp 

j-j  f2  ^ 

co  ers 

i>5  cd  od 

id  CD 

'cP 'd  Os  ip5 

CD  Tp  O O 

CD  ID  CD 

00  ID 

co 

NtHIOMtH 

HCMH 

co 

oo 

TO 

TO  CM  CO 

CO  , , 

n 

eed  per  1G0  pounds  gai] 
shelled  corn 
hominy  meal 
oats 

cottonseed  meal 
linseed  oil  meal 

ground  soybeans 
clover  hay 
corn  silage 

ost  of  feeds 
shelled  corn 
hominy  meal 
oats 

cottonseed  meal 
linseed  oil  meal 

ground  soybeans 
clover  hay 
corn  silage 

Total 

ost  per  H00  pounds  ga: 
ost  of  lambs 
otal  cost 

ecessary  selling  price 

elling  price  per  cwt., 
Lafayette  basis 
elling  value  per  lot 
rofit  or  loss  per  lot 
roflt  or  loss  per  lamb 

R 

o 

00^1^02  ODPpRh 

Sh 

ft  d 


..  <1) 
a ft 
o 


o c3 


o 
a>  > 
as  o 


G 

g 5 
o 

xi  t- 
a> 

..  ft 


G <n  a) 

G i~*  rft 
O'  ^ >, 
ft  v*  O 


G -O 

« o 
u 

w «« 


to6* 

G . 


£ 0 


Initial  value  of  lambs  is  actual  cost  in  feed  lots.  Final  values  of  lambs  are  75  cents  below  Chicago  valuation  for  fat  lambs 


I 

20  \ 

\ \ 

ACTUAL  EXPENDITURES 

Original  cost  of  lambs  in  feed  lot $2,433.97 

Cost  of  feed  while  on  experiment 645.63 

Cost  of  feed  for  cull  lambs 75. 91 

Cost  of  feed  after  experiment  closed 140.05 


Total  cost  $3,295.56 

ACTUAL  RECEIPTS 

Jan.  30,  1918,  Bogan- Jacques,  78.5'  lbs.  wool  at  50  cents  per 

pound .-..$  39.25 

Feb.  6,  1918,  L.  Plaelser  & Son,  125  lambs 1,686.38 

Feb.  12,  1918,  Uryfus  Packing  Co.,  10  lambs 136.85 

Feb.  18,  1918,  Swift  & Company,  73  lambs 891.19 

Feb.  18,  1918,  Dryfus  Packing  Co.,  15  lambs 214.78 


Total  receipts  $2,968.45 


Net  loss1  $ 327.11 

1 This  loss  is  due  in  large  part  to  the  fact  that  it  was  impossible  to  market  the  lambs 
immediately  after  the  close  of  the  experiment  on  account  of  inability  to  obtain  cars,  and 
in  the  meantime,  the  market  price  for  lambs  seriously  declined 


/ 


3*:YEBS!TT  OF  1LUIOIS  LIBRARY 


PURDUE  UNIVERSITY 

JU  t_  1 5 1919. 

Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


Bulletin  No.  222 
September,  1918 


Fig.  1.  Effect  of  manure  on  corn,  Scottsburg  field,  1917.  Each  shock  is  the  produce  of 
one-twentieth  acre 

No  manure  Manured 

35.9  bushels  corn  per  acre  61.9  bushels  corn  per  acre 


THE  VALUE  OF  MANURE  ON  INDIANA  SOILS 


Published  by  the  Station: 
LAFAYETTE,  INDIANA 
U.  S.  A. 


PURDUE  UNIVERSITY  AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 


BOARD  OF  CONTROL 
Joseph  D.  Oliver,  President,  South  Bend 


Fay  S.  Chandler, Indianapolis 

Charles  Downing  Greenfield 

John  A.  Hillenbrand Batesville 

Cyrus  M.  Hobbs Bridgeport 


Winthrop  E.  Stone,  A.  M.,  Ph.  D, 


Warren  T.  McCray Kentland 

James  W.  Noel Indianapolis 

Andrew  E.  Reynolds Crawfordsville 

William  V.  Stuart LaFayette 


.President  of  the  University 


ADVISORY  COMMITTEE 
(Under  Legislative  Act  of  1909) 

John  G.  Brown,  Monon • D.  B.  Johnson,  Mooresville 

State  Live  Stock  Association  State  Dairy  Association 

U.  R.  Fishel,  Hope D.  F.  Maish,  Frankfort  

State  Poultry  Fanciers'  Association  State  Corn  Growers'  Association 

F.  J.  Heacock,  Salem Indiana  Horticultural  Society 


ADMINISTRATION 
Charles  G.  Woodbury,  M.  S.,  Director 


Harry  J.  Reed Assistant  to  the  Director 

Nellie  Tracy Administrative  Assistant 

Mary  K,  Bloom Bookkeeper 


AGRICULTURAL  EXTENSION 
George  I.  Christie,  B.  S.  A.,  Superintendent 
Thomas  A.  Coleman. .State  County  Agent  Leader 

George  M.  Frier,  B.  S.  A Associate  in 

Short  Courses  and  Exhibits 
Mabel  L.  Harlan.. Ass’ t in  Agricultural  Extension 

ANIMAL  HUSBANDRY 
John  H.  Skinner,  B.  S.,  Chief 

Claude  M.  Vestal,  B.  S 

Associate  in  Animal  Husbandry 

George  A.  Branaman,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Animal  Husbandry 

Herbert  E.  McCartney,  B.  S.  A 

Ass’t  in  Animal  Husbandry  Extension 

BOTANY 

Herbert  S.  Jackson,  A.  B.,  Chief 

George  N.  Hoffer,  M.  S Associate  in  Botany 

Luna  E.  Allison,  B.  S Assistant  in  Botany 

Edwin  B.  Mains,  Ph.  D... Assistant  in  Botany 

DAIRY  HUSBANDRY 
Ollie  E.  Reed,  M.  S.,  Chief 

Howard  W.  Gregory,  B.  S 

Associate  in  Dairy  Manufactures 

George  Spitzer,  Ph.  G..  B.  S 

Associate  in  Dairy  Chemistry 

Turner  H.  Broughton,  B.  S... 

Assistant  in  Creamery  Inspection 

William  F.  Epple,  Ph.  G 

Assistant  in  Dairy  Chemistry 

Hubert  W.  Fleisher,  B.  S.  A 

Assistant  in  Creamery  Inspection 

ENTOMOLOGY 
James  Troop,  M.  S.,  Chief 

FARM  MECHANICS 

William  Aitkenhead,  M.  E.,  M.  A 

Specialist  in  Farm  Mechanics 

HORTICULTURE 
Laurenz  Greene,  M.  S.  A.,  Chief 
Joseph  Oskamp,  B.  S..  Associate  in  Pomology 

Walter  A.  Huelson,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Horticulture 

NUTRITION 

Ralph  H.  Carr,  Ph.  D 

Associate  in  Nutrition  Chemistry 

POULTRY  HUSBANDRY 
Allen  G.  Philips,  B.  S.  A.,  Chief 

Dwight  C.  Kennard,  Ph.  C.,  B.  S..... 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Husbandry 


SOILS  AND  CROPS 
Alfred  T.  Wiancico  B.  S.  A.,  Chief 

Martin  L.  Fisher,  M.  S 

Assistant  Chief  in  Soils  and  Crops 

Samuel  D.  Conner,  M.  S 

Associate  Chemist  in  Soils  and  Crops 

Clinton  O.  Cromer,  B.  S Associate  in  Crops 

Sadocie  C.  Jones.  M.  S Associate  in  Soils 

Ernest  N.  Fergus,  M.  Sc 

Assistant  in  Soils  and  Crops 

STATE  CHEMIST 

Edward  G.  Proulx,  M.  *S.x State  Chemist 

Reuben  O.  Bitler,  B.  S.1 2.... Deputy  State  Chemist 

Margaret  Briggs,  B.  S Deputy  State  Chemist 

Paul  B.  Curtis,  B.  S.2 .Deputy  State  Chemist 

Omar  W.  Ford,  A.  B.2 Deputy  State  Chemist 

Herman  J.  Nimitz.  B.  S.2.. Deputy  State  Chemist 
J.  Howard  Roop,  B.  S.2....Deputy  State  Chemist 

Samuel  F.  Thornton,  B.  S.2 

Deputy  State  Chemist 

Otis  S.  Roberts,  B.  S.2 

Chief  Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

Glen  G.  Carter,  B.  S.2 

Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

Benjamn  F.  Catherwood  2 

Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

Wlliam  B.  Tiedt  

Inspector  State  Chemist’s  Department 

VETERINARY  SCIENCE 
Robert  A.  Craig,  D.  V.  M.,  Chief 
David  B.  Clark,  D.  M.  C... Associate  Veterinarian 

Lawrence  C.  Kigin,  D.  V.  M 

Associate  Veterinarian 

George  N.  Roberts,  D.  V.  M.... 

Associate  Veterinarian 

Rex  A.  Whiting,  D.  V.  M 

Associate  in  Animal  Pathnlogy 
Frank  I,  Cason,  B.  S... Ass’t  in  Serum  Production 

Leo  P.  Doyle,  B.  S Ass’t  in  Animal  Pathology 

Leslie  R.  George,  B.  S 

Assistant  in  Animal  Pathology 
Fred  L.  Walkey,  D.  V.  M Ass’t  Veterinarian 

DETAILED  BY  U.  S.  DEPARTMENT  OF 
AGRICULTURE 

Cereal  and  Forage  Crop  Insect  Investigations 
John  J.  Davis,  B.  S..  Entomological 
Assistant  in  Charge 

John  M.  Aldrich,  Ph.  D.,  Entomological  Assistant 

Herman  J.  Hart,  B.  S Scientific  Assistant 

Wesley  O.  Hollister,  B.  S... Scientific  Assistant 

Dean  A.  Ricker.  B.  S Scientific  Assistant 

Chester  F.  Turner,  B.  S Scientific  Assistant 

Seed  Testing 

Anna  M.  Lute,  M.  A Seed  Analyst 


1 In  charge  of  Fertilizer  and  Feeding  Stuff  Control 

2 Connected  with  Fertilizer  and  Feeding  Stuff  Control 


THE  VALUE  OF  MANURE  ON  INDIANA  SOILS 


A.  T.  Wiancko  S.  C.  Jones 

SUMMARY 

Farm  manures  are  now  worth  twice  as  much  as  they  were  before 
the  war. 

With  present  prices  of  crops,  manure  applied  at  a normal  rate  will 
produce  crop  increases  worth  from  $2.00  to  over  $8.00  per  ton  of  manure, 
according  to  the  fertility  of  the  soil  and  the  crops  grown.  The  average 
return  on  the  seven  experiment  fields  reported  in  this  bulletin  has  been 
$5.00  per  ton  of  manure  applied. 

On  the  average  farm,  about  one-third  of  the  value  of  stable  manure 
is  lost  by  improper  methods  of  conservation  and  handling. 

One-half  the  value  of  manure  is  in  the  urine.  This  can  be  saved 
by  concrete  floors  in  stables  and  feed  lots  and  the  use  of  sufficient  absorb- 
ent bedding. 

The  best  way  to  prevent  losses  in  manure  through  fermentation  and 
leaching  is  to  spread  it  upon  the  land  as  rapidly  as  it  is  made. 

Every  barnyard  should  be  provided  with  a concrete  manure  pit  or  en- 
closure in  which  manure,  when  it  must  be  stored,  can  be  compactly  piled. 

When  manure  must  be  stored  in  piles  it  should  be  thoroughly  com- 
pacted. The  pile  should  be  at  least  four  feet  high  and  made  with  per- 
pendicular sides  and  kept  level  or  dished  on  top  to  catch  and  hold  the 
rain  water  which  falls  upon  it,  thus  keeping  the  manure  moist. 

Manure  exposed  to  the  weather  in  loose  piles  for  a few  months  may 
lose  one-half  its  fertilizing  value  through  fermentation  and  leaching. 

The  most  economical  use  of  manure  is  to  apply  it  to  the  land  most  in 
need  of  organic  matter  and  nitrogen,  once  for  each  round  of  the  crop 
rotation  in  amounts  approximately  equal  to  the  cured  weight  of  the  pro- 
duce harvested. 

Light  applications  of  manure  made  every  three  or  four  years  are 
much  more  profitable  than  heavy  applications  made  at  longer  intervals. 

To  get  the  most  out  of  manure,  it  should  be  reinforced  with  phos- 
phates, preferably  acid  phosphate,  using  from  40  to  50  pounds  per  ton  of 
manure.  If  preferred,  the  phosphate  may  be  applied  by  itself  in  any 
convenient  place  in  the  rotation. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  value  of  farm  manure  has  practically  doubled  within  the  last 
two  years  due  to  the  rise  in  the  prices  of  farm  produce.  Farmers,  as  a 
rule,  do  not  realize  this  condition  and  are  showing  too  little  care  in  the 
conservation  and  utilization  of  this  valuable  product.  With  the  present 
urgent  demand  for  more  food  and  the  high  prices  of  commercial  fertil- 
izers, it  is  especially  important  to  make  the  best  possible  use  of  the  plant 
food  materials  produced  on  the  farm. 


4 


Manure  offers  a ready  and  relatively  cheap  means  of  increasing  crop 
production.  It  is  the  natural  farm  fertilizer  and  should  be  much  more 
fully  utilized.  Manure  not  only  supplies  important  elements  of  plant 
food  but  also  provides  the  best  form  of  decomposable  organic  matter  to 
the  soil,  improving  its  physical  condition  and  furthering  highly  important 
bacterial  activities,  which  commercial  fertilizers  alone  cannot  bring  about. 

Experiments  conducted  for  the  last  28  years  on  the  Purdue  farm 
experiment  field  at  LaFayette  and  for  from  two  to  12  years  on  several 
experiment  fields  in  other  parts  of  the  State,  show  that  under  present 
conditions  a ton  of  ordinary  stable  manure  judiciously  used  will  produce 
crop  increases  worth  from  $2.00  to  over  $8.00,  according  to  the  fertility 
of  the  land,  the  rate  of  application,  and  the  crops  for  which  it  is  used. 
A calculation  based  on  the  average  results  of  the  experiments  of  this 
station  and  the  1910  census  of  live  stock  in  the  State  shows  that  the 
manure  made  in  the  stables  and  feed  lots  of  Indiana  is  worth  at  least 
$72,000,000  annually.  It  is  conservatively  estimated  that  at  least  one- 
third  of  the  manure  thus  produced  is  wasted  through  carelessness.  Under 
present  conditions  this  means  a loss  to  the  farmers  of  Indiana  of  at  least 
$24,000,000  annually.  This  loss  can  be  very  largely  prevented  by  proper 
methods  of  conservation  and  handling. 

This  bulletin  presents  the  results  of  some  of  the  Station’s  field  ex- 
periments in  the  use  of  manure,  together  with  discussions  of  the  principal 
points  to  be  observed  in  its  management. 

MANURE  EXPERIMENTS  ON  THE  SCOTTSBURG  FIELD 

The  Scottsburg  field  is  located  on  Volusia  silt  loam,  commonly 
called  “yellow  clay,”  which  is  the  predominating  soil  type  on  the  hilly 
lands  of  southern  Indiana.  The  land  had  been  exhaustively  cropped  for 
many  years,  with  no  manure  and  but  little  fertilizer  applied,  and  was 
badly  run  down.  The  field  was  laid  out  in  the  fall  of  1905  with  three 
series  of  similarly  treated  plots  for  a corn,  wheat  and  clover  rotation,  so 
that  all  the  crops  in  the  rotation  could  be  grown  every  year.  The  manur- 
ing is  at  the  rate  of  10  tons  per  acre  per  rotation.  The  first  application 
of  manure  was  made  on  the  first  wheat  crop  on  each  series  of  plots,  be- 
ginning in  the  fall  of  1905.  After  that,  the  manure  was  plowed  under  for 
corn  once  in  three  years.  Both  the  manured  and  unmanured  plots  were 
limed  in  1911  with  two  tons  of  ground  limestone  per  acre.  All  the  crops 
have  been  removed  from  the  land  except  the  small  amount  of  second 
growth  clover,  which  has  been  plowed  under. 

In  Table  I are  shown  the  average  annual  crop  yields  on  the  manured 
and  unmanured  land,  together  with  the  increases  produced  by  the  manure 
and  the  financial  results  at  present  crop  prices.1 

1 Throughout  this  bulletin  the  crop  increases  produced  have  been  valued,  in  round  num- 
bers, approximately  at  the  prices  prevailing  at  this  time,  as  follows:  corn  $1.00.  oats  70 
cents  and  wheat  $2.00  per  bushel;  stover  $6.00,  oats  straw  $6.00,  wheat  straw  $5.00,  and 
hay,  $20.00  per  ton.  No  set  price  has  been  placed  upon  manure,  but  its  value  per  ton  has 
been  calculated  from  the  value  of  the  crop  increases  which  it  actually  produced  in  each  case 


5 


Table  I. — Results  from  Manure  on  a Corn,  Wheat  and  Clover  Rotation, 
Scottsburg  Experiment  Field,  1906-1918 


6 

z 

Treatment 

Average  yields  per  acre 

Value  of 
increase 
per  acre 
per  year 

Tons 

manure 

per 

Return 
per  ton 
of 

manure 

0 

E 

Corn 

bushels 

Stover 

pounds 

Wheat 

bushels 

Straw 

pounds 

Hay 

pounds 

per 

year 

16 

Lime  only 

30.0 

2653.0 

9.7 

985.0 

674.0 

15 

Lime  and  manure 

50.2 

4064.0 

19.3 

1999.0 

1429.0 

Gain  for  manure 

20.2 

1411.0 

9.6 

1014.0 

755.0 

$17.89 

3.33 

$5.37 

Fig.  2.  Effect  of  manure  on  wheat,  Scottsburg  field,  1918.  Each  shock  is  the  produce 
of  one-twentieth  acre 

No  manure  Manured 

11.0  bushels  wheat  per  acre  30.7  bushels  wheat  per  acre 


In  Table  I it  will  be  seen  that  the  manure  has  produced  large  in- 
creases on  corn  and  wheat.  While  the  hay  yields  have  been  more  than 
doubled  by  the  manure,  they  have  been  unsatisfactory  on  account  of 
several  years  of  unfavorable  weather  conditions  and  the  fact  that  the  land 
was  especially  low  in  organic  matter  and  in  extremely  bad  physical  con- 
dition to  begin  with,  causing  several  complete  failures,  which  have  kept 
down  the  average  yield.  In  the  last  three  years  the  hay  yields  have  been 
fairly  good,  averaging  2795  pounds  per  acre.  Notwithstanding  the  poor 
average  hay  yield,  the  manure  has  made  a good  showing  on  this  field  as 
compared  with  the  unmanured  land,  producing  average  crop  increases 
worth  $17.89  per  acre  per  year,  or  $5.37  per  ton  of  manure. 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  rate  of  manuring  on  this  field  (10  tons 
per  acre  per  rotation)  has  been  considerably  above  normal,  that  is,  the 
amount  applied  in  each  rotation  has  been  much  larger  than  could  have 
been  made  from  the  produce  under  ordinary  farm  conditions  where  a 
fair  average  production  is  a pound  of  manure  for  every  pound  of  feed 


6 


and  bedding  used.  On  this  basis,  the  amount  of  manure,  that  could  have 
been  made  from  the  produce1  other  than  wheat  grain,  would  have  been 
about  5.4  tons  per  acre  per  rotation  instead  of  the  io  tons  actually  used. 
In  the  light  of  our  present  knowledge,  a more  nearly  normal  rate  of 
manuring  would  doubtless  have  returned  larger  profits  per  ton  of  man- 
ure. This  is  indicated  in  the  results  on  the  Purdue  Farm  experiment 
field  reported  later  in  this  bulletin  where  light  and  heavy  applications  of 
manure  have  been  compared. 

MANURE  EXPERIMENTS  ON  THE  NORTH  VERNON  FIELD 

The  experiment  field  at  North  Vernon  in  Jennings  County  is  located 
on  the  flat,  whitish-gray  silt  loam  soil  commonly  known  as  “slash  land,” 
which  is  widely  represented  in  southeastern  Indiana.  The  field  was  laid 
out  for  experimental  purposes  and  thoroughly  tile  drained  in  the  fall  of 
1911.  In  1912,  the  land  was  limed  with  fine  ground  limestone  at  the  rate 
of  four  tons  per  acre  and  a preliminary  crop  of  soybeans  grown.  This 
crop  was  harvested,  the  seed  threshed  out  and  the  soybean  straw  re- 
turned to  the  land.  Three  series  of  plots  were  laid  out  for  a corn,  wheat 
and  clover  rotation  so  that  all  the  crops  in  the  rotation  could  be  grown 
every  year.  Manure  has  been  applied  at  the  rate  of  six  ton's  per  acre, 
plowed  under  for  corn  once  in  three  years,  beginning  in  1913.  All  the 
crops  have  been  removed  from  the  land  except  the  second  growth  clover, 
which  has  been  plowed  under. 


Table  II. — Results  from  Manure  on  a Corn,  Wheat  and  Clover  Rotation, 
North  Vernon  Experiment  Field,  1913-1918 


6 

£ 

Treatment 

Average  yields  per  acre 

Value  of 
increase 
per  acre 
per  year 

Tons 

manure 

per 

acre 

per 

year 

Return 
per  ton 
of 

manure 

0 

5 

Corn 

bushels 

Stover 

pounds 

Wheat 

bushels 

Straw 

pounds 

Hay 

pounds 

2 

Lime  only 

45.6 

3061.0 

12.1 

1428.0 

3580.0 

1 

Lime  and  manure 

71.3 

4828.0 

20.3 

2096.0 

3980.0 

Gain  for  manure 

25.7 

1767.0 

8.2 

668.0 

400.0 

$17.69 

2.0 

$8.85 

In  Table  II  are  shown  the  average  annual  crop  yields  secured  from 
six  tons  of  manure  per  acre  per  rotation  on  limed  land  on  the  North 
Vernon  experiment  field  during  the  last  five  years,  together  with  the  in- 
creases produced  by  the  manure  and  the  financial  results.  The  compara- 
tively small  average  wheat  yields  are  due  to  the  fact  that  two  of  the  six 
crops  grown  were  badly  damaged  by  Hessian  fly.  The  corn  yields  have 
been  very  satisfactory  considering  the  character  of  the  land.  On  land 
across  the  fence  to  the  west,  which  until  five  years  ago  was  a part  of  the- 
same  field,  the  1916  corn  crop  was  not  worth  husking,  while  that  on  the 
experiment  field  averaged  67.9  bushels  per  acre.  On  another  field,  lying 
to  the  south,  the  1917  corn  crop  produced  only  about  30  bushels  per  acre, 
while  the  corn  in  the  experiment  field  averaged  78.5  bushels  per  acre. 


7 


Fig.  3.  Effect  of  manure  on  wheat,  North  Vernon  field,  1918.  Each  shock  is  the  produce 
of  one -twentieth  acre 

Lime  and  manure  Lime  only 

30.7  bushels  wheat  per  acre  18.7  bushels  wheat  per  acre 


These  differences  are  due  in  large  part  to  the  fact  that  the  experiment 
field  is  well  tile  drained,  while  the  adjoining  fields  have  only  surface 
drainage. 

The  manure  on  the  experiment  field  has  produced  crop  increases 
valued  at  $53.07  per  acre  per  rotation,  or  $17.69  per  acre  per  year  and 
$8.85  per  ton  of  manure  applied.  Other  experiments  have  shown  this 
soil  to  be  particularly  deficient  in  nitrogen,  organic  matter  and  phos- 
phorus, which  accounts  for  the  high  value  of  manure  on  this  land.  The 
addition  of  200  pounds  of  acid  phosphate  per  acre  to  the  lime  and  manure 
treatment  on  another  part  of  this  field,  has  added  further  crop  increases 
worth  $14.98  per  acre  per  rotation.  The  rate  of  manuring  on  this  field 
has  been  somewhat  below  normal.  On  the  basis  stated  in  the  discussion 
of  the  results  on  the  Scottsburg  field,  the  produce  would  have  made  7.9 
tons  of  manure  per  acre  per  rotation  instead  of  the  six  tons  actually  used. 

MANURE  EXPERIMENTS  ON  THE  WORTHINGTON  FIELD 

The  experiment  field  at  Worthington  in  Greene  County  is  located  on 
Knox  silt  loam,  commonly  called  “clay”,  which  is  the  predominating  soil 
type  of  the  rolling  uplands  of  that  section  of  the  State  and  is  similar  to 
much  of  the  light  colored  so-called  “clay”  soils  of  central  Indiana.  The 
plan  of  this  field  is  a duplicate  of  that  at  North  Vernon.  It  was  started 
at  the  same  time  and  the  treatment  has  been  the  same  except  that  the 
soil  being  less  acid,  ground  limestone  was  applied  at  the  rate  of  only  two 
tons  per  acre. 

In  Table  III  are  shown  the  average  annual  crop  yields  secured  from 
six  tons  of  manure  per  acre  per  rotation  on  limed  land  on  the  Worthing- 
ton experiment  field  during  the  last  five  years,  together  with  the  in- 
creases produced  by  the  manure  and  the  financial  results. 


8 


Table;  III. — Results  from  Manure  on  a Corn,  Wheat  and  Clover  Rota- 
tion, Worthington  Experiment  Field,  1913-1918 


6 

ft 

Treatment 

Average  yields  per  acre 

Value  of 
increase 
per  acre 
per  year 

Tons 

manure 

per 

Return 
per  ton 
of 

manure 

o 

E 

Corn 

bushels 

Stover 

pounds 

Wheat 

bushels 

Straw 

pounds 

Hay 

pounds 

per. 

year 

2 

Lime  only 

33.6 

2393.0 

9.2 

859.0 

3945.0 

1 

Lime  and  manure 

41.1 

2606.0 

13.7 

1499.0 

5092.0 

Gain  for  manure 

7.5 

213.0 

4.5 

640.0 

1147.0 

$10.13 

2.0 

$5.07 

In  this  case,  the  manure  has  produced  crop  increases  valued  at  $30.39 
per  acre  per  rotation,  or  $10.13  per  acre  per  year  and  $5.07  per  ton  of 
manure  applied.  This  land  is  naturally  not  so  deficient  in  the  substances 
supplied  by  the  manure  as  the  North  Vernon  field.  The  relatively  low 
average  yields  of  corn  and  wheat  were  due  to  two  seasons  of  extremely 
dry  weather  for  the  corn  and  one  entire  failure  of  the  wheat  crop  due  to 
winter-killing.  The  addition  of  200  pounds  of  acid  phosphate  per  acre  to 
the  lime  and  manure  treatment  on  another  part  of  this  field  has  added 
further  crop  increases  worth  $21.44  Per  acre  Per  rotation.  So  far,  the  rate 
of  manuring  on  this  field  has  been  just  about  equal  to  the  amount  of 
manure  that  could  have  been  made  from  the  produce  removed  other 
than  the  wheat  grain. 


Fig.  4.  Effect  of  manure  on  corn,  Worthington  field,  1917.  Each  shock  is  the  produce 
of  one -twentieth  acre 

Eime  only 

. 43.4  bushels  corn  per  acre 


Lime  and  manure 
58.7  bushels  corn  per  acre 


9 


Fig.  5.  Effect  of  manure  on  clover,  Worthington  field,  1917.  Each  cock  is  the  produce 
of  one-twentieth  acre 

Lime  and  manure  Lime  only 

7440  pounds  hay  per  acre  5420  pounds  hay  per  acre 

MANURE  EXPERIMENTS  ON  DIFFERENT  CROP  ROTATIONS  ON  PURDUE 

FARM  AT  LAFAYETTE 

The  experiment  field  on  the  Purdue  farm  is  located  on  Sioux  silt 
loam,  which  is  a high  terrace  or  second  bottom  soil  of  brown  to  dark 
brown  color,  underlaid  at  from  two  to  four  feet  in  depth  by  a deep  bed 
of  gravel.  The  surface  soil  is  fine  in  texture  and  naturally  well  supplied 
with  organic  matter  and  was  in  a good  state  of  fertility  when  the  ex- 
periments were  begun  in  1890.  Due  to  the  shallow  depth  of  the  soil 
and  the  nearness  of  the  gravel  to  the  surface,  the  land  is  leachy  and 
crops,  especially  corn,  are  always  more  or  less  subject  to  drought. 

The  field  was  laid  out  for  experimental  purposes  in  the  spring  of 
1889  and  a crop  of  corn  grown  on  all  plots.  In  1890,  the  six  different 
rotations  or  systems  of  cropping  shown  in  the  following  tables  were  be- 
gun, with  two  different  commercial  fertilizer  and  two  different  manure 
treatments  in  each  case.  Each  series  consists  of  seven  plots.  Plots  1,  4 
and  7 are  untreated  checks,  plot  2 receives  a heavy  application  and  plot 
3 a light  application  of  commercial  fertilizer,  plot  5 receives  a heavy  ap- 
plication and  plot  6 a light  application  of  manure.  Only  the  two  manured 
plots  (5  and  6)  and  the  two  flanking  untreated  check  plots  (4  and  7)  are 
considered  in  this  bulletin  to  show  the  effects  of  the  manuring  on  the 
different  rotations  and  the  relative  values  of  the  light  and  heavy  appli- 
cations. 

In  the  following  tables  are  shown  the  different  crop  rotations  and 
the  average  annual  crop  yields  per  acre  on  the  manured  and  unmanured 
plots,  together  with  the  average  applications  of  manure,  the  crop  increases 
produced  by  the  two  different  rates  of  manuring  and  the  financial  results 
at  present  crop  prices.  In  each  rotation,  the  manuring  was  calculated  to 
return  approximately  two-thirds  of  the  crop  requirements  on  plot  5 and 


10 


one-third  on  plot  6.  During  the  earlier  years,  the  rate  of  manuring  was 
calculated  from  the  crop  yields,  but  since  1903  each  corn  crop  has  re- 
ceived six  tons  of  manure  per  acre  on  plot  5 and  three  tons  per  acre  on 
plot  6,  and  each  wheat  or  oats  crop  has  received  four  tons  per  acre  on  plot 
5 and  two  tons  per  acre  on  plot  6.  The  clover  has  not  been  manured.  All 
the  produce  has  been  removed  from  the  land  except  the  second  growth 
clover,  which  has  been  plowed  under. 


Table  IV. — Results  from  Manure  in  Continuous  Corn  Culture, 
Purdue  Farm  Experiment  Field,  1890-1917 


Treatment 

Tons  of  manure 
per  acre 
per  rotation 

Average  crop  yields  per  acre 

Value  of 
increase 
per  acre 
per  year 

Tons 

manure 

per 

acre 

per 

year 

Re- 
turns 
per  ton 
of 

manure 

Corn 

bushels 

Stover 

pounds 

Nothing 

26.7 

2394.0 

/ 

Manure,  6.5  tons 

38.7 

3184.0 

Manure,  3.6  tons 

38.4 

2960.0 

Nothing 

26.3 

2132.0 

Gain  for  heavy 

application 

12.2 

878.0 

$14.83 

6.5 

$2.28 

Gain  for  light 

application 

12.0 

741.0 

14.22 

3.6 

3.95 

Table  V. — Results  from  Manure  in  Continuous  Wheat  Culture, 
Purdue  Farm  Experiment  Field,  1890-1917 


Treatment 

Tons  of  manure 
per  acre 
per  rotation 

Average  crop  yields  per  acre 

Value  of 
increase 
per  acre 
per  year 

Tons 

manure 

per 

acre 

per 

year 

Re- 
turns 
per  ton 
of 

manure 

Wheat 

bushels 

Straw 

pounds 

Nothing 

Manure,  4.2  tons 
Manure,  2.5  tons 
Nothing 

12.2 

19.6 
17.9 

12.6 

1205.0 

2140.0 

1799.0 

1282.0 

Gain  for  heavy 
application 

Gain  for  light 
application 

7.3 

5.5 

910.0 

544.0 

$17.15 

12.38 

4.2 

£5 

$4.08 

4.95 

II 


Table)  VI. — Results  from  Manure  on  a Corn  and  Wheat  Rotation, 


Purdue  Farm  Experiment  Field,  1890-1917 


Treatment 

Tons  of  manure 
per  acre 
per  rotation 

Average  crop  yields  per  acre 

Value  of 
increase 
per  acre 
per  year 

Tons 

manure 

per 

acre 

per 

year 

Re- 
turns 
per  ton 
of 

manure 

Corn 

bushels 

Stover  Wheat  1 Straw 
pounds  bushels | pounds 

Nothing 

27.1 

1838.0 

9.8 

877.0 

Manure,  10.8  tons 

42.1 

3051.0 

21.7 

2325.0 

Manure,  6.4  tons 

39.8 

2744.0 

19.2 

1888.0 

Nothing 

27.4 

1751.0 

9.4 

860.0 

Gain  for  heavy 

application 

14.9 

1242.0 

12.0 

1454.0 

$23.13 

5.4 

$4.28 

Gain  for  light 

application 

12.5 

964.0 

9.7 

999.0 

18.64 

3.2 

5.82 

Table:  VII. — Results  from  Manure  on  a Corn,  Oats  and  Wheat  Rotation, 
Purdue  Farm  Experiment  Field,  1890-1917 


Treatment 

Tons  of  manure 
per  acre 
per  rotation 

Average  crop  yields  per  acre 

Value  of 
increase 
per  acre 
per  year 

Tons 

manure 

per 

acre 

per 

year 

Re- 
turns 
per  ton 
of 

manure 

Corn 

bushels 

Stover 

pounds 

Oats 

bushels 

Oats 

straw 

pounds 

Wheat 

bushels 

Wheat 

straw 

pounds 

Nothing 

26.2 

1733.0 

33.4 

1106.0 

11.5 

1047.0 

Manure,  14.8  tons 

42.8 

2634.0 

46.6 

1691.0 

21.7 

2094.0 

Manure,  8.8  tons 

40.6 

2456.0 

45.8 

1554.0 

18.4 

1872.0 

Nothing 

29.9 

1777.0 

36.0 

1128.0 

13.1 

1274.0 

Gain  for  heavy 

application 

15.4 

886.0 

12.3 

578.0 

9.7 

969.0 

$16.58 

4.9 

$3.38 

Gain  for  light 

application 

12.0 

693.0 

10.6 

434.0 

5.9 

669.0 

11.97 

2.9 

4.11 

Table:  VIII.* — Results  from  Manure  on  a Corn,  Wheat  and  Clover  Rotation, 
Purdue  Farm  Experiment  Field,  1890-1917 


Treatment 

Tons  of  manure 
per  acre 
per  rotation 

Average  crop  yields  per  acre 

Value  of 
increase 
per  acre 
per  year 

Tons 

manure 

per 

acre 

per 

year 

Re- 
turns 
per  ton 
of 

manure 

Corn 

bushels 

Stover 

pounds 

Wheat 

bushels 

Straw 

pounds 

Clover 

hay 

pounds 

Nothing 

32.2 

1872.0 

7.0 

655.0 

2231.0 

Manure,  11.4  tons 

43.9 

2672.0 

17.6 

1803.0 

3174.0 

Manure,  5.7  tons 

41.8 

2471.0 

13.7 

1410.0 

2898.0 

Nothing 

33.2 

2104.0 

7.7 

765.0 

2439.0 

Gain  for  heavy 

application 

11.4 

723.0 

10.4 

1111.0 

874.0 

$15.40 

3.8 

$4.05 

Gain  for  light 

_ 

application 

9.0 

445.0 

6.1 

681.0 

529.0 

9.91 

1.9 

5.22 

Prior  to  1904  this  was  a six  year  rotation  of  corn,  sugar  beets,  oats,  wheat,  clover 
and  timothy 


12 


Table  IX. — Results  from  Manure  on  a Corn,  Oats,  Wheat  and  Clover  Rotation, 
Purdue  Farm  Experiment  Field,  1890-1917 


Treatment 

Tons  of  manure 
per  acre 
per  rotation 

Average  crop  yields  per  acre 

Value  of 
increase 
per  acre 
per  year 

Tons 

manure 

per 

acre 

per 

year 

Re- 
turns 
per  ton 
of 

manure 

Corn 

bushels 

Stover 

pounds 

Oats 

bushels 

Oats 

straw 

pounds 

Wheat 

bushels 

Wheat 

straw 

pounds 

Clover 

hay 

pounds 

Nothing 

28.6 

1844.0 

27.9 

1040.0 

10.7 

1065.0 

1679.0 

Manure,  14.2  tons 

35.9 

2452.0 

35.8 

1461.0 

18.5 

1989.0 

2457.0 

Manure,  8.5  tons 

36.2 

2404.0 

38.0 

1494.0 

16.7 

1771.0 

2282.0 

Nothing 

29.2 

1825.0 

29.9 

1097.0 

10.5 

1029.0 

1513.0 

Gain  for  heavy 

application 

7.1 

614.0 

7.2 

402.0 

7.9 

936.0 

834.0 

$10.87 

3.6 

$3.02 

Gain  for  light 

application 

7.2 

572.0 

8.8 

416.0 

6.1 

730.0 

714.0 

9.32 

2.1 

4.44 

DISCUSSION  OF  TABLES  IV  TO  IX 

In  the  results  secured  from  manure  on  the  Purdue  experiment  field, 
presented  in  Tables  IV  to  IX,  inclusive,  attention  is  directed  to  two  prin- 
cipal points : first,  the  relatively  large  crop  increases  produced  by  the 
manuring  compared  with  the  yields  on  the  untreated  land.  The  small 
average  yields  throughout  are  due  to  the  gravel  subsoil  and  the  conse- 
quent droughty  condition  of  the  land.  In  seasons  of  abundant  rainfall, 
the  yields  have  been  very  satisfactory,  while  several  very  dry  seasons 
have  caused  almost  complete  crop  failures.  The  leachy  and  droughty 
character  of  the  land  has  doubtless  operated  against  getting  the  best  re- 
sults from  the  manure  applied.  While  the  crop  yields  have  not  been 
large  in  any  case,  on  the  percentage  basis,  the  manure  has  produced  about 
37  per  cent,  increase  as  the  average  for  the  several  crops  over  the  entire 
period. 

The  second  important  point  to  be  observed  in  these  tables  is  the  rela- 
tively larger  returns  secured  from  the  lighter  applications  of  manure.  In 
every  case,  the  lighter  manuring  has  produced  the  larger  returns  per  ton 
of  manure  applied.  As  a general  average  for  the  six  systems  of  cropping, 
the  heavier  applications  of  manure,  averaging  4.7  tons  per  acre  per  year, 
have  produced  crop  increases  valued  at  $16.44  Per  acre  Per  year,  and 
$3-53  Per  ton  of  manure  applied.  The  lighter  applications  of  manure, 
averaging  2.7  tons  per  acre  per  year,  have  produced  crop  increases  valued 
at  $12.99  Per  acre  Per  year,  and  $4.84  per  ton  of  manure  applied.  The 
average  difference  in  the  value  of  the  produce  per  ton  of  manure  has 
been  $1.31  in  favor  of  the  lighter  rates  of  manuring. 

An  examination  of  the  yields  produced  in  the  several  rotations  shows 
that  on  the  average  the  normal  rate  of  manuring  would  have  been  about 
1.8  tons  of  manure  per  acre  per  year,  which  is  considerably  less  than  the 
so-called  “light”  application  actually  used,  which  averaged  2.7  tons  per 
acre  per  year. 


13 


MANURE  EXPERIMENTS  ON  WILSON  FARM  AT  LAFAYETTE 

The  Wilson  Farm  experiment  involving  a study  of  the  effect  of 
manure  is  located  on  Miami  silt  loam,  which  fairly  represents  the  greyish 
so-called  “clay”  soil  common  throughout  central  and  northeastern  Indi- 
ana. The  land  has  been  under  cultivation  for  at  least  two  generations 
but  seems  to  have  been  fairly  well  managed  and  in  the  later  years  at  least 
has  been  more  or  less  manured.  The  experiment  on  this  field  was  begun 
in  1915  after  two  years  of  preliminary  cropping  with  corn  and  soybeans, 
of  which  it  produced  fair  crops.  Three  blocks  of  similarly  treated  land 
are  used  in  the  experiment  and  carry  a rotation  of  corn,  wheat  and 
clover.  Manure  is  applied  once  in  three  years  for  the  corn  crop  at  the 
rate  of  six  tons  per  acre.  Both  the  manured  and  unmanured  land  was 
limed  in  1915  at  the  rate  of  two  tons  of  ground  limestone  per  acre. 


Table)  X. — Results  from  Manure  on  a Corn,  Wheat  and  Clover  Rotation, 
Wilson  Farm,  LaFayette,  1915-1918 


Plot  No. 

Treatment 

Average  yields  per  acre 

Value  of 
increase 
per  acre 
per  year 

Tons 

manure 

per 

acre 

per 

year 

Return 
per  ton 
of 

manure 

Corn 

bushels 

1915- 

1917 

Stover 

pounds 

Wheat 

bushels 

1916- 

1918 

Straw 

pounds 

Hay 

pounds 

1917- 

1918 

19 

Lime 

35.8 

3200.0 

19.1 

1903.0 

3560.0 

20 

Lime  and  manure 

40.3 

3353.0 

22.0 

2033.0 

3550.0 

Gain  for  manure 

4.5 

153.0 

2.9 

130.0 

-10.0 

$3.66 

2.0 

$1.83 

In  Table  X are  shown  the  average  annual  crop  yields  on  the  manured 
and  unmanured  land,  the  increases  produced  by  the  manure  and  the  finan- 
cial results.  Up  to  date,  three  manured  corn  crops  and  three  wheat 
and  two  hay  crops  following  have  been  harvested.  Due  to  unfavorable 
seasons  the  corn  yields  have  been  relatively  small  for  this  land  and  the 
1917  wheat  crop  was  not  what  it  should  have  been.  So  far  the  showing 
for  manure  has  not  been  good,  amounting  to  only  $1.83  per  ton  of  manure 
applied,  but  the  field  observations  indicate  that  it  has  not  yet  had  a fair 
chance  due  to  unfavorable  seasonal  conditions. 

MANURE  EXPERIMENTS  ON  THE  BEDFORD  FIELD 

The  experiment  field  at  Bedford  is  located  on  the  Moses  Fell  Annex 
Farm  on  a yellowish-brown  silt  loam  soil  typical  of  most  of  the  upland 
of  Lawrence  and  neighboring  counties.  As  nearly  as  could  be  learned, 
this  land  has  been  cropped  for  about  two  generations  with  little  use  of 
manure  or  fertilizer  and  had  been  in  meadow  for  several  years.  There 
was  a thin  growth  of  timothy,  blue  grass,  red  top  and  broom  sedge.  Two 
preliminary  crops,  one  of  corn  and  one  of  soybeans,  were  grown  on  the 
land  after  plowing  up  the  sod  and  before  the  special  treatments  were  be- 
gun. The  corn  crop  made  about  25  bushels  per  acre  and  the  entire  crop 
was  removed  from  the  land.  The  soybeans  made  only  a small  growth 
and  the  entire  crop  was  plowed  under. 


14 


There  are  two  experiments. involving  manure  treatments  on  this  field. 
One  is  a three-year  rotation  of  corn,  wheat  and  clover  begun  in  1916  and 
the  other  is  a four-year  rotation  of  corn,  wheat,  clover  and  timothy  beguh 
in  1917.  The  manuring  is  at  the  rate  of  six  tons  per  acre  in  the  three- 
year  rotation  and  eight  tons  per  acre  in  the  four-year  rotation  plowed 
under  for  corn  once  in  the  rotation  in  both  cases. 

In  Table  XI  are  shown  the  results  so  far  secured  on  the  manured 
and  untreated  land  in  the  corn,  wheat  and  clover  rotation.  Table  XII 
shows  the  results  in  the  corn,  wheat,  clover  and  timothy  rotation. 


Table:  XI. — Results  from  Manure  on  a Corn,  Wheat  and  Clover  Rota- 
tion, Bedford  Experiment  Field,  1916-1918 


d 

£ 

Treatment 

Average  yields  per  acre 

Value  of 
increase 
per  acre 
per  year 

Tons 

manure 

per 

acre 

per 

year 

Return 
per  ton 
of 

manure 

0 

5 

Corn 

bushels 

Stover 

pounds 

Wheat 

bushels 

Straw 

pounds 

Hay 

pounds 

133 

Nothing 

30.8 

1730.0 

1.70 

260.0 

780.0 

132 

Manure 

41.2 

2012.0 

2.25 

305.0 

1160.0 

Gain  for  manure 

10.4 

282.0 

0.55 

45.0 

380.0 

$5.42 

2.0 

$2.71 

Table  XII. — Results  from  Manure  on  a Corn,  Wheat,  Clover  and 
Timothy  Rotation,  Bedford  Experiment  Field,  1917-1918 


Average  yields  per  acre 

Value  of 
increase 
per  acre 
per  year 

Tons 

vn  0 niiTA 

Return 
per  ton 
of 

manure 

Plot  No 

Treatment 

Corn 

bushels 

1917 

Stover 

pounds 

Wheat 

bushels 

1918 

Straw 

pounds 

Clover 

hay 

pounds 

1917-1918 

Timothy 

hay 

pounds 

1917-1918 

Lll  dll  111  c 

per 

acre 

per 

year 

14 

Nothing 

29.5 

1825.0 

4.50 

655.0 

1080.0 

1430.0 

15 

Manure 

43.7 

2530.0 

10.16 

850.0 

1540.0 

2040.0 

Gain  for 
manure 

14.2 

705.0 

5.66 

195.0 

460.0 

610.0 

$9.70 

2.0 

$4.85 

The  actual  yields  on  the  Bedford  field  have  been  small  in  most  cases, 
due  partly  to  the  poor  condition  of  the  soil  to  begin  with  and  partly  to 
unfavorable  conditions,  but  the  percentage  increase  due  to  manuring  has 
been  good,  ranging  from  over  30  to  almost  50  per  cent.  Winter-killing 
and  particularly  Hessian  fly  damage  caused  almost  complete  wheat  fail- 
ures in  the  three-year  rotation.  The  corn  and  clover  crops  have  suffered 
considerably  from  unfavorable  weather.  However,  other  experiments 
alongside  show  that  the  manure  treatment  alone  is  not  all  that  is  required 
by  this  soil.  More  phosphorus  than  the  manure  supplies  is  needed  and 
liming  also  is  essential  to  the  best  results.  Where  manure,  lime  and  acid 
phosphate  were  used,  the  corn  yield  has  been  raised  to  over  60  bushels 
per  acre  and  the  wheat  and  clover  yields  have  been  from  four  to  five 
times  as  much  as  on  the  untreated  land. 


i5 


MANURE  EXPERIMENTS  ON  THE  FRANCISCO  FIELD 

This  field  is  located  near  Francisco  in  Gibson  County.  The  soil  is  a 
yellowish-brown  silt  loam  characteristic  of  the  rolling  uplands  of  south- 
western Indiana.  The  land  has  been  under  cultivation  for  many  years 
and  so  far  as  could  be  learned  had  never  been  manured.  The  crops 
grown  are  corn,  wheat  and  clover  rotated  on  three  series  of  plots.  The 
land  was  limed  in  the  fall  of  1915  at  the  rate  of  three  tons  of  ground 
limestone  per  acre.  The  manuring  on  this  field  has  been  at  the  rate  of 
eight  tons  per  acre  plowed  under  for  corn  once  in  three  years.  The  first 
application  was  made  in  1916.  Two  crops  of  corn,  one  of  wheat  and  one 
of  clover  have  been  harvested  from  manured  land.  The  1917  wheat 
crop  was  a total  failure,  due  to  fly  and  winter-killing. 

In  Table  XIII  are  shown  the  average  annual  crop  yields  on  the 
manured  and  unmanured  land  together  with  the  increases  produced  by 
the  manure  and  the  financial  results. 


Table  XIII. — Results  from  Manure  on  a Corn,  Wheat  and'  Clover 
Rotation,  Francisco  Experiment  Field,  1916-1918 


Plot  No. 

Treatment 

Average  yields  per  acre 

Value  of 
increase 
per  acre 
per  year 

Tons 

manure 

per 

acre 

per 

year 

Return 
per  ton 
of 

manure 

Corn 

bushels 

1916- 

1917 

Stover 

pounds 

Wheat 

bushels 

1917- 

1918 

Straw 

pounds 

Hay 

pounds 

1918 

2a 

Lime 

39.8 

3590.0 

8.5 1 

710.0 

2420.0 

2b 

Lime  and  manure 

53.6 

4289.0 

16.7 1 

1545.0 

3680.0 

Gain  for  manure 

13.8 

699.0 

8.2 

835.0 

1260.0 

$15.66 

2.66 

$5.89 

1 The  low  average  wheat  yield  is  due  to  the  fact  that  .the  1917  wheat  crop  was  a 
complete  failure  due  to  Hessian  fly  and  winter-killing 


The  showing  made  by  manure  on  this  field  has  been  good  on  all 
three  of  the  crops  in  the  rotation,  resulting  in  $15.06  per  acre  per  rota- 
tion or  $5.89  per  ton  of  manure  applied.  The  corn  crop  has  been  in- 
creased by  one-third ; the  wheat  yield  has  been  practically  doubled,  and 
the  clover  has  been  increased  by  one-half. 

SOURCES  OF  WASTE  AND  LOSS  IN  FARM  MANURES 

If  we  take  the  average  value  per  ton  of  manure  as  shown  on  the 
seven  fields  reported  in  this  bulletin  to  be  fairly  representative,  and  de- 
duct 40  cents  per  ton  for  the  cost  of  application,  the  value  of  a ton  of 
manure  .in  the  barnyard  is  $4.60.  Based  on  the  1910' census  of  live  stock 
in  Indiana  and  the  average  amount  of  manure  that  can  be  saved  from  each 
class  of  animals,  the  average  production  of  manure  per  year  in  Indiana  is 
15,690,077  tons  after  deducting  one-fourth  of  the  manure  from  horses, 
one-third  of  that  from  cattle  and  one-half  of  that  from  sheep  and  swine, 
which  is  either  deposited  on  fields  and  pastures  where  there  is  little  loss, 
or  in  roads  and  lanes  where  its  loss  cannot  be  prevented.  At  $4.60  per 
ton,  the  manure  that  can  be  saved  from  Indiana  live  stock,  according  to 
these  estimates,  is  worth  $72,174,354.20  annually. 


i6 


It  is  conservatively  estimated  that  one-third  of  the  manure  annually 
made  in  the  stables  and  feed  lots  in  the  State  is  lost  or  wasted  by  improper 
methods  of  conservation  and  handling.  Under  present  conditions  this 
means  an  annual  loss  to  the  farmers  of  Indiana  of  $26,058,118.06.  Prac- 
tically all  of  this  loss  could  be  prevented  by  proper  methods  of  manage- 
ment. 

Among  the  more  important  sources  of  loss  and  waste  in  manures  are 
leakage  of  the  liquids  through  wooden  stable  floors,  or  soaking  into  the 
ground  in  the  case  of  earth  floors,  muddy  feed  lots,  leaching  through  ex- 
posure to  rain  in  the  open,  where  the  liquid  runs  away  into  streams  or 
soaks  into  the  ground  and  is  lost,  and  fermentation  and  “fire-fanging”  in 
loose  piles  causing  much  loss  of  nitrogen  and  organic  matter. 

METHODS  OF  CONSERVING  MANURE 

Stables  and  feed  lots  should  have  concrete  floors.  Practically  one- 
half  of  the  manurial  value  of  the  voidings  of  animals  is  in  the  urine,  much 
of  which  will  be  lost  unless  concrete  floors  are  used.  At  the  Ohio  Sta- 
tion it  was  found  that  the  manure  from  a thousand-pound  steer  for  six 
months  was  worth  over  $2.00  more  when  made  on  a concrete  floor  than 


Fig.  6.  A concrete  manure  pit  will  pay  for  itself  in  a short  time.  Leaching  is  entirely 
prevented.  By  tramping  the  manure  as  it  is  put  into  the  pit,  fermentation  may  be  re- 
duced to  a minimum 


when  made  on  a clay  floor.  The  cost  of  constructing  concrete  floors  will 
be  paid  for  in  a short  time  by  saving  the  liquid  that  would  otherwise  soak 
into  the  ground  or  drain  away.  In  addition  to  having  concrete  floors, 
enough  bedding  should  be  used  to  absorb  all  the  liquid. 

Wherever  possible,  manure  should  not  be  stored  for  any  length  of 
time,  but  should  be  hauled  out  and  spread  upon  the  land  as  rapidly  as  it 
is  made.  Except  on  very  sloping  ground  when  frozen  in  winter,  there 


1 7 


will  be  practically  no  loss  after  the  manure  is  spread.  It  is  not  always 
practical,  however,  to  spread  manure  as  rapidly  as  it  is  made.  In  such 
cases,  provision  should  be  made  for  storing  it  in  a way  to  prevent  loss  as 
far  as  possible.  The  most  practical  storage  place  is  a concrete  pit  or  en- 
closure outside  of  the  stable  in  which  the  manure  can  be  compactly  piled. 
The  pit  should  be  so  constructed  that  the  wagon  or  spreader  can  be 
easily  loaded  from  it.  Manure  should  never  be  thrown  out  under  the 
eaves  of  the  roof  or  into  loose  piles  where  leaching  and  fermentation  will 
cause  heavy  losses.  When  manure  must  be  piled,  it  should  be  thoroughly 
compacted  in  perpendicular  sided  piles  kept  level  or  dished  on  top  and 
built  several  feet  high.  Compacting  by  tramping  will  exclude  air  and 
reduce  fermentation.  Keeping  the  pile  dished  on  top  will  cause  rain  that 
falls  on  it  to  soak  in  and  further  prevent  heating.  Manure  should  not  be 
hauled  into  the  field  and  placed  in  small  piles  for  spreading  later  on,  as 
there  is  certain  to  be  waste  through  leaching,  if  not  also  destructive  fer- 
mentation. The  teachings  may  be  taken  up  by  the  soil,  but  the  spot  where 
the  pile  lies  will  be  made  unduly  rich.  By  proper  attention  to  the  points 
discussed  above,  practically  all  of  the  manure  losses  in  Indiana  stables 
and  feed  lots  can  be  prevented. 

THE  VALUE  OF  MANURE 

A ton  of  manure  is  worth  exactly  what  it  will  produce  in  crop  in- 
creases, minus  the  labor  of  handling.  Manure  may  have  a certain  plant 
food  value  or  a certain  organic  matter  value  under  a given  set  of  condi- 
tions, but  it  is  not  practical  to  put  any  set  value  upon  it  for  all  conditions. 
On  one  soil  the  nitrogen  content,  on  another  the  phosphorus,  and  on  an- 
other the  potash  content  may  be  the  important  or  determining  plant  food 
factor  in  the  value  of  the  manure.  Likewise,  on  some  soils  the  organic 
matter  will  be  more  important  than  on  others.  A knowledge  of  the 
needs  of  the  particular  soil  is  necessary  to  form  anything  like  a trust- 
worthy estimate  of  the  value  of  manure  applied  to  it,  and  the  results  of 
experiments  under  known  soil  conditions  may  be  very  helpful  in  arriving 
at  just  conclusions. 

It  must  be  remembered,  too,  that  different  lots  of  manure  will  vary 
in  composition  according  to  differences  in  the  conditions  under  which 
they  are  made.  The  quality  of  the  feed,  the  kind  of  animals  fed,  the 
kind  and  amount  of  bedding  used,  the  proportion  of  the  liquid  voidings 
saved,  the  method  of  handling  and  the  conditions  of  storing,  all  influence 
the  quality  and  value  of  the  manure.  Legume  hay  and  rich  concentrated 
feeds  make  richer  manure  than  where  non-leguminous  feeds  are  used. 

TIME,  PLACE  AND  METHOD  OF  APPLYING  MANURE 

As  has  been  stated  in  the  discussion  of  methods  of  conserving  man- 
ure, the  best  time  to  apply  manure  is  as  soon  as  possible  after  it  is  made, 
in  order  to  prevent  losses  from  fermentation  and  leaching  during  storage. 
Many  farmers  find  it  good  practice  to  spread  manure  on  young  wheat 
in  the  fall  or  during  the  winter  when  the  ground  is  bare  and  frozen. 
Such  use  of  manure  not  only  helps  the  wheat  by  hastening  development 
in  the  spring  but  it  also  helps  to  prevent  winter-killing  by  acting  as  a 
mulch.  It  also  helps  to  insure  a stand  of  clover  and  grass  when  these 


i8 


are  seeded  on  the  wheat.  In  the  summer  time,  manure  can  often  be 
spread  on  young  clover  or  on  second  growth  clover  or  on  oats  stubble 
to  be  plowed  for  wheat.  The  bulk  of  the  manure,  however,  can  be  most 
satisfactorily  spread  on  land  to  be  planted  to  corn.  The  organic  matter 
value  of  manure  can  undoubtedly  be  secured  to  the  fullest  extent  when  it 
is  plowed  under  or  otherwise  worked  in  and  allowed  to  decompose  in  the 
soil.  When  incorporated  in  the  soil,  manure  has  an  important  effect  in 
furthering  beneficial  bacterial  action.  It  is  good  practice  to  disk  the 
ground  after  applying  manure  and  before  plowing,  in  order  to  mix  it 
with  the  soil  and  avoid  throwing  it  all  into  the  bottom  of  the  furrow.  Fine 
manure  may  often  be  used  to  advantage  as  a top  dressing  on  corn  and 
other  spring  planted  crops  but  the  rush  of  other  work  usually  makes  this 
impracticable. 

Among  the  methods  of  applying  manure,  there  is  nothing  better  than 
the  manure  spreader.  Spreading  can  never  be  done  as  uniformly  by  hand 
as  with  the  spreader.  It  is  often  claimed  that  two  tons  of  manure  applied 
with  a spreader  are  as  effective  as  three  tons  spread  with  a fork. 

THE  RATE  OF  MANURING 

The  normal  rate  of  manuring  under  practical  farm  conditions,  sup- 
posing that  all  the  produce  of  the  land  that  can  be  profitably  utilized  were 
fed  or  used  for  bedding,  would  be  a pound  of  manure  for  every  pound  of 
air-dried  produce,  except  the  wheat  grain.  Under  such  conditions,  taking 
the  average  produce  on  the  manured  land  in  the  seven  experiment  fields 
reported  in  this  bulletin,  the  normal  full  rate  of  manuring  would  be  two 
tons  of  manure  per  acre  per  year,  or  about  six  tons  per  acre  once  in 
three  years  on  a corn,  wheat  and  clover  rotation  averaging  50  bushels  of 
corn,  16  bushels  of  wheat  and  3200  pounds  of  hay  per  acre.  Where  the 
corn  stalks  are  left  in  the  field,  the  amount  of  manure  that  can  be  made 
from  the  three  crops  mentioned  will  be  reduced  to  about  four  tons  per 
acre  per  rotation. 

It  will  be  noted  that  in  the  case  of  the  Scottsburg  field  and  the 
heavier  applications  on  the  Purdue  field,  the  rates  of  manuring  have  been 
much  heavier  than  normal.  In  other  words,  much  more  manure  has 
been  applied  in  each  round  of  the  rotation  than  could  possibly  have  been 
made  from  the  produce  of  these  fields.  On  the  North  Vernon,  Worth- 
ington, Wilson  Farm  and  Francisco  fields  and  in  the  case  of  the  lighter 
applications  on  the  Purdue  field,  the  rates  of  manuring  have  been  more 
nearly  normal,  or  practically  equivalent  to  the  amount  of  manure  that 
could  have  been  made  from  the  produce.  These  lighter  rates  of  manur- 
ing in  all  cases  have  been  more  profitable  per  ton  of  manure  than  the 
heavier  applications.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  making  the  manure  serve 
the  whole  farm  at  a normal  rate  once  per  rotation,  is  more  economical 
than  using  heavier  applications  at  longer  intervals  or  on  only  a part  of 
the  farm. 


19 


SUPPLEMENTING  MANURE  WITH  PHOSPHATE 

On  most  Indiana  soils,  manure  is  not  a well  balanced  fertilizer.  All 
of  our  ordinary  soils  are  deficient  in  phosphorus.  Manure  is  also  de- 
ficient in  this  element.  It  is,  therefore,  advisable  to  supplement  the 
manure  with  phosphatic  fertilizers,  preferably  acid  phosphate.  As  a 
general  farm  practice,  where  the  manure  is  plowed  under  for  corn,  the 
acid  phosphate  can  be  most  conveniently  applied  once  for  the  entire  rota- 
tion by  means  of  a fertilizer  attachment  on  the  drill  when  seeding  a small 
grain  crop,  using  from  200  to  300  pounds  per  acre,  according  to  the 
length  of  the  rotation.  If  preferred,  the  same  result  can  be  accomplished 
by  sprinkling  the  acid  phosphate  on  top  of  the  manure  in  the  manure 
spreader,  using  about  40  or  50  pounds  of  the  phosphate  per  ton  of  manure. 

Very  striking  results  have  been  secured  by  this  station  from  supple- 
menting manure  with  phosphates  on  several  different  soil  types.  On  the 
North  Vernon  and  Worthington  experiment  fields,  the  addition  of  200 
pounds  of  acid  phosphate  to  a six-ton  application  of  manure  per  acre  per 
rotation  of  corn,  wheat  and  clover  has  produced  additional  crop  increases 
valued  at  $14.98  and  $21.44,  respectively,  at  a cost  of  $2.25  for  the  phos- 
phate at  $25.00  per  ton.  At  South  Bend,  under  similar  conditions  of  crop- 
ping and  manuring,  the  addition  of  $5.46  worth  of  acid  phosphate 'has 
produced  crop  increases  valued  at  $12.52.  On  the  Bedford  field  several 
different  rates  of  supplementing  manure  with  acid  phosphate  have  been 
tried  with  a six-ton  application  of  manure  per  acre  per  rotation  of  corn, 
wheat  and  clover  with  results  as  follows:  150  pounds  of  acid  phosphate 
produced  crop  increases  valued  at  $19.64,  300  pounds  produced  $25.98, 
450  pounds  produced  $31.22  and  1000  pounds  produced  $57.68  worth  of 
crop  increase  per  acre  per  rotation  over  and  above  the  increases  pro- 
duced by  the  manure. 

MANURE  AND  COMPLETE  FERTILIZER 

As  to  whether  or  not  it  will  pay  to  use  a complete  fertilizer  in  addi- 
tion to  manure,  other  experiments  on  several  of  the  fields  reported  show 
that  this  depends  upon  the  condition  of  the  land  as  regards  the  supply  of 
organic  matter  and  nitrogen.  On  the  North  Vernon  field,  which  is  very 
low  in  these  constituents,  the  application  of  200  pounds  per  acre  of  a 
2-8-4  fertilizer,  on  wheat  in  addition  to  six  tons  of  manure  and  200 
pounds  of  acid  phosphate  on  corn  once  in  three  years  has  paid  a profit 
of  $1.58,  while  on  the  other  fields,  all  of  which  are  somewhat  better 
supplied  with  organic  matter  and  nitrogen,  it  has  not  paid. 

MANURE  VS.  FERTILIZER 

Another  question  which  arises  is  to  what  extent  fertilizer  can  take 
the  place  of  manure.  On  the  North  Vernon  and  Worthington  fields, 
$9.13  worth  of  fertilizer  per  rotation,  consisting  of  200  pounds  acid  phos- 
phate on  corn  and  200  pounds  2-8-4  on  wheat,  has  produced  crop  in- 
creases worth  $33.36  and  $26.73  respectively,  while  six  tons  of  manure 
have  produced  crop  increases  worth  $57.00  and  $29.40  respectively.  At 
Scottsburg,  $12.43  worth  of  2-8-4  fertilizer  has  produced  crop  increases 
worth  $22.96,  while  10  tons  of  manure  have  produced  crop  increases 


20 


worth  $51.29.  At  Bedford  $27.52  worth  of  fertilizer  consisting  of  400 
pounds  per  acre  of  0-8-4  on  corn  and  400  pounds  of  4-8-4  on  wheat  in 
a four-year  rotation  of  corn,  wheat,  clover  and  timothy  has  produced 
crop  increases  valued  at  $57.03,  while  eight  tons  of  manure  have  pro- 
duced crop  increases  valued  at  $37.06  per  acre  per  rotation.  The  rela- 
tive importance  of  phosphorus  is  again  strikingly  illustrated  on  this  field 
where  800  pounds*  of  0-8-0  per  rotation,  costing  $5.12,  produced  crop 
increases  worth  $50.55,  while  800  pounds  of  2-8-4  used  in  the  same  way 
and  costing  $27.52  produced  $52.54  worth  of  crop  increases.  The  value 
of  phosphorus,  even  where  land  is  well  manured,  is  further  illustrated  in 
another  test  where  eight  tons  of  manure  alone  produced  crop  increases 
worth  $32.16,  while  the  same  amount  of  manure  reinforced  with  400 
pounds  of  acid  phosphate  produced  $63.18  worth  of  crop  increase. 

GENERAL  RECOMMENDATIONS 

Adopt  a systematic  rotation  of  crops,  including  clover  or  some  other 
legume  at  least  once  every  three  or  four  years. 

Wherever  clover  fails  to  do  well,  apply  two  or  more  tons  of  ground 
limestone  to  the  acre. 

See  that  the  land  is  properly  drained  and  practice  good  tillage 
methods. 

Feed  as  much  of  the  produce  as  possible  and  carefully  conserve  and  re- 
turn to  the  land  the  manure  produced,  as  well  as  any  unused  crop  residues. 

Apply  from  150  to  200  pounds  per  acre  of  acid  phosphate  or  some 
other  available  phosphate  to  each  grain  crop  in  the  rotation.  In  a per- 
manent system,  where  manure  is  applied  for  corn,  enough  phosphate  for 
the  whole  rotation  may  be  most  conveniently  applied  when  seeding 
wheat  or  oats.  Under  certain  systems  of  farming,  where  the  crops  are 
not  all  fed  on  the  farm,  it  will  pay,  under  normal  conditions,  to  add  some 
nitrogen  and  potash  in  the  fertilizer. 

If  acid  phosphate  or  other  available  phosphate  cannot  be  secured, 
a mixed  fertilizer  as  high  as  possible  in  available  phosphoric  acid  should 
be  used. 

RECENT  PURDUE  PUBLICATIONS  RELATING  TO  SOIL  FERTILITY 

Experiment  Station  Bulletin  No.  210.  The  Value  of  Phosphates  on  In- 
diana Soils. 

Experiment  Station  Bulletin  No.  213.  The  Value  of  Time  on  Indiana 
Soils. 

Experiment  Station  Circular  No.  66.  The  Time  and  Fertilizer  Needs  of 
Indiana  Soils. 

Experiment  Station  Circular  No.  76.  Increasing  Crop  Yields  for  War 
Needs. 

Experiment  Station  Circular  No.  79.  Indiana  Soils  Need  Phosphates. 


Ud/I 

XAZb 


PURDUE  UNIVERSITY 


Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


UNIVERSITY  CF  FLUIDS  l WRY 


Bulletin  No.  223  APR  3 0 1919 

September,  1918 


Fig.  1.  Good  management,  sanitation  and  proper  vaccination  will  prevent  disease 


SO-CALLED  MEDICINAL  HOG  CHOLERA 
REMEDIES  AND  CURES 


Published  by  the  Station: 
LAFAYETTE,  INDIANA 
U.  S.  A. 


SO-CALLED  MEDICINAL  HOG  CHOLERA 
REMEDIES  AND  CURES 

C.  H.  Cunk  D.  B.  Clark 


INTRODUCTION 

The  prevalence  of  hog  cholera  in  Indiana  and  neighboring  states  has 
been  responsible  for  the  introduction  and  advertising  of  numerous  so- 
called  preventives  or  cures.  Tests  carried  on  by  the  Station  have  proved 
these  to  be  worthless  in  controlling  the  disease. 

Previous  to  the  enactment  of  the  Swine  Disease  law  in  1913,  a great 
many  of  these  proprietary  preparations  were  advertised  widely  by  agri- 
cultural papers  and  were  used  largely  by  farmers  and  feeders  of  hogs 
having  outbreaks  of  hog  cholera  in  their  herds. 

The  prevalence  of  hog  cholera  from  1911  to  1915  resulted  in  the 
venders  of  these  so-called  remedies  becoming  very  active  in  the  State 
and  in  order  to  protect  the  swine  industry,  the  General  Assembly  in  1913 
passed  a law  requiring  the  testing  of  all  preparations  claimed  to  be  pre- 
ventives, remedies  or  cures  for  hog  cholera,  by  the  Purdue  Agricultural 
Experiment  Station.  Section  9 of  this  law  is  as  follows  d 

“Hog  Cholera  Serum — Test  Approved  by  Purdue  University. 

Sec.  9.  It  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  person,  firm  or  corpora- 
tion or  their  agents  to  sell  or  dispose  of  in  any  way  anti-hog- 
cholera  serum  or  hog-cholera  virus,  or  any  other  serum  or  so- 
called  serum  or  vaccine,  or  any  other  remedy,  in  this  state,  un- 
less said  serum  or  virus  or  any  other  remedy,  has  been  tested  and 
approved  by  the  Purdue  University  Agricultural  Experiment 
Station,  and  a permit  issued  by  state  veterinarian  to  said  per- 
son, firm  or  corporation  or  their  agents,  allowing  him  or  them 
to  sell  or  use  said  serums,  vaccines  or  virus  or  any  other  remedy 
for  the  purpose  of  vaccinating  swine  against  hog  cholera  or  any 
infectious  disease,  or  treating  swine  affected  with  hog  cholera  or 
any  infectious  disease.  Said  serum,  virus,  or  so-called  serum  or 
vaccine  or  any  other  re  medy  shall  meet  any  test  required  by  said 
experiment  station  for  potency,  protective  properties,  virulence, 
or  freedom  from  such  organisms  as  may  cause  septic  infection 
before  the  state  veterinarian  shall  issue  said  permit,  and  if  at  any 
time  after  said  permit  has  been  issued  said  serum  or  virus  or  any 
other  remedy  does  not  meet  with  such  a test  for  potency,  protec- 
tive properties,  virulence  or  freedom  from  such  organisms  as 
may  cause  septic  infection,  said  permit  shall  be  revoked  by  the 
state  veterinarian.” 

In  compliance  with  the  provisions  of  this  law,  generally  known  as 
the  Swine  Disease  law,  the  Veterinary  Department  of  the  Station  has 
tested  20  different  preparations  during  the  past  five  years.  Duplicate 
tests  were  made  of  three  of  the  preparations,  making  a total  of  23  tests. 


* Acts — Indiana,  1913,  Chapter  135,  Sec.  9 


4 


Each  test,  upon  completion,  was  reported  promptly  and  in  detail  to  the 
State  Veterinarian  with  such  recommendations  for  his  action  as  were 
warranted  by  the  facts. 

Several  other  preparations  than  those  discussed  in  this  bulletin  were 
offered  for  sale  but  upon  presentation  to  their  proprietors  of  a copy  of  the 
law,  and  a request  for  samples  of  the  material  for  testing,  were  in  each 
case  withdrawn  from  sale  and  claims  made  in  regard  to  the  value  in  the 
cure  or  prevention  of  hog  cholera  were  discontinued.  A great  many 
preparations  were  offered  for  testing  but  it  was  found  impossible  to 
make  tests  of  all  on  account  of  lack  of  funds.  The  policy  of  the  Station 
has  been  to  test  every  so-called  remedy  which  was  actually  produced  and 
offered  for  sale,  but  to  refuse  to  test  theoretical  formulas,  the  supposed 
value  of  which  for  the  control  of  hog  cholera,  their  originators  wished 
to  have  tested. 


Fig.  2.  The  hogs  marked  X have  hog  cholera.  Experience  and  tests  indicate  that  the 
so-called  medicinal  remedies  will  not  control  the  disease  or  prevent  its  spread  to  the  rest  of 
the  herd.  Prompt  vaccination,  using  the  serum-simultaneous  treatment  with  good  serum, 
is  the  most  satisfactory  and  profitable  method  of  controlling  hog  cholera 


PLAN 

The  general  plan  of  testing  medicinal  mixtures  and  other  prepara- 
tions advertised  or  sold  as  preventives  and  cures  for  hog  cholera  has  been 
as  follows:  from  five  to  29  hogs,  weighing  from  60  to  100  pounds,  were 
used  for  testing  each  of  the  remedies.  All  of  the  hogs  were  exposed  to 
hog  cholera  by  inoculating  them  with  hog  cholera  blood,  or  placing  them 
in  a cholera  infected  pen.  Part  of  the  hogs  were  treated  with  the  prepara- 
tion according  to  the  directions,  and  the  balance  was  not  treated.  Daily 
observations  of  the  conditions,  symptoms,  and  body  temperatures  of  the 
test  lot  were  made.  All  were  given  the  same  feed  and  care.  The  fol- 
lowing is  a description  of  each  test. 


Cunningham  Hog  Cholera  Remedy 

A sample  of  the  Cunningham  Hog  Cholera  Remedy  was  submitted 
to  Dr.  W.  E.  Coover,  former  State  Veterinarian,  who  delivered  it  to  the 
Station  for  testing  purposes. 

Thirteen  pigs  were  treated  with  the  preparation  according  to  direc- 
tions and  13  pigs  were  left  untreated  as  controls.  All  but  one  of  the 
treated  pigs  died,  and  all  of  the  control  pigs  died  or  were  killed  when  fatal 
symptoms  of  hog  cholera  were  shown.  All  of  the  dead  pigs,  both  treated 
and  untreated,  showed  lesions  of  hog  cholera  upon  post-mortem  examin- 
ation. This  remedy  was  withdrawn  from  sale. 

National  23 

An  advertised  preparation  for  hog  cholera  known  as  National  23, 
sold  by  the  National  Breeders  Company,  Toledo,  Ohio,  was  placed  on 
test  October  15,  1913.  Seven  pigs  were  treated  with  the  preparation 
according  to  directions  and  six  pigs  were  left  as  controls.  All  pigs  were 
placed  in  infected  pens  and  none  of  them  showed  any  symptoms  of  dis- 
ease, proving  they  were  immune  to  cholera. 

The  test  was  repeated  November  19,  1913.  Five  pigs  were  used  in 
making  the  second  test  of  National  23,  three  being  treated  and  two  left 
as  control  pigs.  All  five  pigs  died  and  showed  lesions  of  hog  cholera 
upon  post-mortem  examination,  showing  that  the  preparation  had  no 
value  as  a hog  cholera  preventive  or  cure. 


Table  I. — Data  Obtained  in  Test  of  National  23  (first  test) 


Hog 

number 

Method  of  infection 

Dose  of 
preparation 

Results 

777 

pen  exposure 

3.8  C.C. 

lived 

778 

pen  exposure 

3.2  C.C. 

lived 

779 

pen  exposure 

3.8  c.c. 

lived 

780 

pen  exposure 

3.9  c.c. 

lived 

781 

pen  exposure 

lived 

782 

pen  exposure 

lived 

783 

pen  exposure 

lived 

896 

pen  exposure 

lived 

897 

pen  exposure 

lived 

898 

pen  exposure 

lived 

899 

pen  exposure 

4.2  c.c. 

lived 

900 

pen  exposure 

3.9  c.c. 

lived 

901 

pen  exposure 

4.0  c.c. 

lived 

Table  II. — Data  Obtained  in  Test  of  National  23  (second  test) 


Hog 

number 

Method  of  infection 

Dose  of 
preparation 

Results 

778 

pen  exposure 

3.9  c.c. 

died  31st  day;  cholera  lesions 

779 

pen  exposure 

4.2  c.c. 

died  17th  day;  cholera  lesions 

780 

pen  exposure 

3.2  c.c. 

died  13th  day;  cholera  lesions 

781 

pen  exposure 

died  19th  day;  cholera  lesions 

782 

pen  exposure 

died  11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

6 


U.  S.  Specific 

A preparation  produced  by  the  U.  S.  Specific  Company,  Indianap- 
olis, Indiana,  which  had  been  widely  advertised  and  sold  in  the  State, 
was  tested  on  eight  pigs,  four  being  treated  with  the  preparation  accord- 
ing to  the  manufacturer’s  directions,  and  the  remainder  left  untreated 
as  controls.  The  test  was  started  January  7,  1914.  The  prepar- 
ation furnished  was  a clear,  colorless  solution  like  water  in  appearance. 
The  test  pigs  were  exposed  to  pen  infection  and  both  treated  and  control 
pigs  died  and  showed  lesions  of  hog  cholera  upon  post-mortem  exam- 
ination. 

The  test  showed  that  the  preparation  was  of  no  value  in  curing  or 
preventing  hog  cholera. 


Table  III. — Data  Obtained  in  Test  of  U.  S.  Specific 


Hog 

number 

Method  of  infection 

Dose  of 

preparation 

Results 

171 

pen  exposure 

3.0  C.C. 

died  11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

172 

pen  exposure 

3.0  C.C. 

died  12th  day;  cholera  lesions 

173 

pen  exposure 

4.5  c.c. 

died  20th  day;  cholera  lesions 

174 

pen  exposure 

3.0  c.c. 

died  30th  day;  cholera  lesions 

175 

pen  exposure 

died  11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

176 

pen  exposure 

died  17th  day;  cholera  lesions 

177 

pen  exposure 

died  11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

178 

pen  exposure 

died  11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

American  Specific  No.  2 

The  American  Specific  Company,  Elgin,  Illinois,  with  a branch  of- 
fice at  Indiana  Harbor,  Indiana,  produced  a preparation  called  American 
Specific  No.  2,  which  was  guaranteed  to  immunize  hogs  previously  ex- 
posed to  hog  cholera.  A test  of  this  preparation  was  started  January 
7,  1914.  The  material  furnished  was  a clear,  colorless  liquid  resembling 
water  in  appearance.  Eight  pigs  were  used  in  the  test,  four  being  treated 
with  the  preparation  according  to  the  manufacturer’s  directions.  One 
treated  pig  and  one  control  pig  survived  the  test,  all  the  others  dying 
and  exhibiting  hog  cholera  lesions  upon  post-mortem  examination. 

The  test  proved  that  American  Specific  No.  2,  possessed  no  curative 
or  preventive  properties  against  hog  cholera. 


Table  IV. — Data  Obtained  in  Test  of  American  Specific  No.  2 


Hog 

number 

Method  of  infection 

Dose  of 
preparation 

Results 

163 

pen  exposure 

3.0  c.c. 

died  30th  day;  cholera  lesions 

164 

pen  exposure 

3.2  c.c. 

died  28th  day;  cholera  lesions 

165 

pen  exposure 

3.5  c.c. 

died  14th  day;  cholera  lesions 

166 

pen  exposure 

4.0  c.c. 

lived 

167 

pen  exposure 

died  18th  day;  cholera  lesions 

168 

pen  exposure 

lived 

169 

• pen  exposure 

died  15th  day;  cholera  lesions 

170 

pen  exposure 

died  20th  day;  cholera  lesions 

7 


Preparation  Prepared  by  S.  H.  Colbert 

A preparation  known  as  Blue  Moon  Hog  Corrector  produced  by  the 
Blue  Moon  Stock  Corrector  Company,  Crawfordsville,  Indiana,  was 
tested  out  on  eight  pigs,  four  of  which  were  treated  with  the  preparation 
according  to  directions  (one  tablespoonful  per  pig  each  day  in  the  feed) 
and  the  remaining  four  pigs  were  used  as  controls.  The  test  was  begun 
February  18,  1914.  The  material  was  in  the  form  of  a white  powder. 
All  the  test  pigs  died  and  showed  lesions  of  hog  cholera  upon  post-mortem 
examination. 

The  test  proved  this  preparation  to  be  of  no  value  in  curing  or  pre- 
venting hog  cholera. 


Table  V. — Data  Obtained  in  Test  of  Blue  Moon  Hog  Corrector 


Hog 

Method  of  infection 

Treated  and 

Results 

number 

untreated 

339 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  24th  day;  cholera  lesions 

340 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  25th  day;  cholera  lesions 

341 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  27th  day;  cholera  lesions 

342 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  31st  day;  cholera  lesions 

343 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  18th  day;  cholera  lesions 

344 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  18th  day;  cholera  lesions 

345 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  12th  day;  cholera  lesions 

346 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  20th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Preparation  Prepared  by  S.  H.  Colbert 

A hog  cholera  preparation  prepared  by  S.  H.  Colbert  of  Wheatland, 
Indiana,  was  tested  on  20  pigs.  The  test  was  begun  August  3,  1914.  Ten 
pigs  received  the  preparation  as  per  directions  and  10  were  left  untreated 
as  controls.  Five  pigs  in  each  lot  were  inoculated  with  two  cubic  centi- 
meters each  of  hog  cholera  blood  and  all  were  placed  in  infected  pens. 
Seven  of  the  treated  pigs  and  eight  of  the  untreated  pigs  died,  showing 
extensive  lesions  of  hog  cholera  upon  post-mortem  examination. 

The  result  of  the  test  proved  the  material  to  be  of  no  value  as  a hog 
cholera  cure  or  preventive  and  the  sale  of  it  was  discontinued  by  the 
proprietor. 

The  proprietor  of  this  preparation  was  present  and  superintended 
the  administration  of  the  material  to  the  treated  pigs. 


8 


Table  VI. — Data  Obtained  in  Test  of  a Preparation  Prepared  by 

S.  H.  Colbert 


Hog 

number 

Method  of  infection 

Treated  and 
untreated 

Results 

911 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

died  5th  day;  cholera  lesions 

912 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

died  8th  day;  cholera  lesions 

913 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

died  5th  day;  cholera  lesions 

914 

pen  exposure 

treated 

lived 

915 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  9th  day;  cholera  lesions 

916 

pen  exposure 

treated 

lived 

917 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

died  7th  day;  cholera  lesions 

918 

pen  exposure 

treated 

lived 

919 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  8th  day;  cholera  lesions 

920 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

died  7th  day;  cholera  lesions 

928 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

lived 

929 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  14th  day;  cholera  lesions 

930 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

died  11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

931 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

lived 

932 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

died  8th  day;  cholera  lesions 

933 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

died  11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

934 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  9th  day;  cholera  lesions 

935 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  15th  day;  cholera  lesions 

936 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

died  12th  day;  cholera  lesions 

937 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

died  14th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Crosier's  Hog  Cholera  Cure 

A preparation  known  as  Crosier’s  Hog  Cholera  Cure,  manufactured 
by  the  Crosier’s  Stock  and  Poultry  Powder  Company,  New  Albany, 
Indiana,  was  tested  on  20  pigs,  10  of  which  received  the  preparation  as 
per  directions  and  the  others  left  as  control  pigs.  All  of  the  pigs  showed 
abnormal  temperatures  on  the  first  day  of  the  test.  This  material  was 
put  on  test  August  4,  1914.  Five  pigs  in  each  lot  were  inoculated  with 
two  cubic  centimeters  of  hog  cholera  blood  each  and  all  of  them 
placed  in  infected  pens.  Seven  in  each  lot  died  and  exhibited  lesions  of 
hog  cholera  upon  post-mortem  examination,  and  three  in  each  lot  recov- 
ered. The  directions  on  the  label  were  as  follows : 

“Give  a tablespoonful  to  each  hog  twice  a day  in  soft  feed  or  slop, 
but  if  they  are  too  sick  to  eat,  drench  them  by  mixing  the  medicine  in  a 
drenching  bottle  with  water,  then  roll  the  animal  on  its  back  and  it  can  be 
drenched  very  easily,  and  in  cases  of  over-feeding  or  when  they  are  off 
their  feed,  give  once  or  twice  a day,  and  when  disease  is  in  the  herd  give 
to  all  alike  morning  and  evening,  as  this  prevents  those  that  are  appar- 
ently healthy  from  taking  the  disease.” 

The  result  of  the  test  showed  the  remedy  to  be  without  value  in  cur- 
ing or  preventing  hog  cholera. 


9 


Table  VII. — Data  Obtained  in  Test  of  Crosier’s  Hog  Cholera  Cure 


Hog 

number 

Method  of  infection 

Treated  and 
untreated 

Results 

901 

pen  exposure 

treated 

lived 

902 1 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  7th  day;  cholera  lesions 

903 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

died  7th  day;  cholera  lesions 

904 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  10th  day;  cholera  lesions 

905 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

lived 

906 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

lived 

907 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

died  8th  day;  cholera  lesions 

908 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  13th  day;  cholera  lesions 

909 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

died  10th  day;  cholera  lesions 

9101 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  5th  day;  cholera  lesions 

948 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

died  10th  day;  cholera  lesions 

944 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

lived 

942 1 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

died  8th  day;  cholera  lesions 

946 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

died  10th  day;  cholera  lesions 

943 1 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

died  10th  day;  cholera  lesions 

940 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

lived 

949 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  8th  day;  cholera  lesions 

945 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  8th  day;  cholera  lesions 

947 1 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

lived 

938 1 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  14th  day;  cholera  lesions 

1 Hogs  Nos.  902,  910,  942,  943,  947  and  938  had  abnormal  body  temperatures  the  first  day 
of  the  test 


Vaxall 

A preparation  known  as  Vaxall  prepared  by  Drs.  Parrett  and  Mon- 
toux  of  Indianapolis,  was  tested,  beginning  August  3,  1914,  and  extend- 
ing to  August  22.  The  proprietors  of  this  material  were  present  and 
administered  their  preparation.  Ten  treated  pigs  and  10  control  pigs 
were  used,  five  in  each  lot  being  inoculated  with  one  cubic  centimeter  of 
hog  cholera  blood  each,  and  the  others  received  pen  exposure.  Four 
of  the  controls  and  five  of  the  treated  pigs  died.  On  account  of  the  num- 
ber of  control  pigs  remaining  alive  at  the  conclusion  of  the  test,  it  was 
deemed  advisable  to  duplicate  the  test  as  a partial  immunity  was  indicated 
in  the  pigs  used. 

A second  test  of  the  Vaxall  preparation  was  started  on  August  19, 
1914,  and  continued  until  September  9,  1914. 

Drs.  Parrett  and  Montoux,  the  proprietors  of  this  preparation,  were 
present  and  personally  administered  the  material. 

Twenty  pigs  were  used,  10  being  treated  and  10  used  as  controls. 
Several  pigs  showed  abnormal  temperatures  when  placed  on  test.  Five 
of  the  treated  pigs  and  five  of  the  control  pigs  were  injected  with  one 
cubic  centimeter  of  hog  cholera  blood  each  and  the  others  subjected  to 
pen  exposure.  Three  of  the  treated  pigs  and  three  of  the  control  pigs 
that  received  one  cubic  centimeter  of  the  virus  died  and  two  in  each  lot 
lived.  One  of  the  treated  pigs  and  three  of  the  control  pigs  that  received 
pen  exposure  died.  In  all,  six  of  the  10  treated  pigs  and  four  of  the  con- 
trol pigs  lived. 

The  two  tests  showed  that  Vaxall  was  not  a remedy  or  preventive 
for  hog  cholera.  Inquiries  later  in  regard  to  Vaxall  from  other  states 


IO 


gave  the  information  that  the  preparation  was  being  sold  and  recommend- 
ed for  the  cure  and  prevention  of  hog  cholera  in  other  sections,  especially 
in  the  South. 


Table;  VIII. — Data  Obtained  in  Test  of  Vaxall  (first  test) 


Hog 

number 

Method  of  infection 

Treated  and 
untreated 

Results 

002 : 1 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

lived 

603 1 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

died  8th  day;  cholera  lesions 

604 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

lived 

605 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

lived 

606 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

died  7th  day;  cholera  lesions 

607 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

lived 

608 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

lived 

609 1 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  6th  day;  cholera  lesions 

610 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  8th  day;  cholera  lesions 

611 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

lived 

701 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

lived 

702 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

lived 

703 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

lived 

704 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

lived 

705 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

died  12th  day;  cholera  lesions 

7061 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  8th  day;  cholera  lesions 

707 1 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  13th  day;  cholera  lesions 

708 

pen  exposure 

treated 

lived 

709 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  16th  day;  cholera  lesions 

710 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  13th  day;  cholera  lesions 

1 Hogs  Nos.  602,  603,  609,  706  and  707  had  abnormal  body  temperatures  the  first  day  of  the  test 


Table  IX. — Data  Obtained  in  Test  of  Vaxall  (second  test) 


Hog 

number 

Method  of  infection 

Treated  and 
untreated 

Results 

528 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

lived 

529 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

lived 

530 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

died  17th  day;  cholera  lesions 

531 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

died  21st  day;  cholera  lesions 

532 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

died  14th  day;  cholera  lesions 

533 

pen  exposure 

treated 

lived 

534 

pen  exposure 

treated 

lived 

535 

pen  exposure 

treated 

lived 

536 

pen  exposure 

treated 

lived 

537 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  23rd  day;  cholera  lesions 

538 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

lived 

539 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

died  10th  day;  cholera  lesions 

540 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

died  9th  day;  cholera  lesions 

541 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

lived 

542 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

died  21st  day;  cholera  lesions 

543 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  10th  day;  cholera  lesions 

544 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

545 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

lived 

546 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

lived 

547 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  10th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Preparation  Prepared  by  A.  J.  Keubeer 
A preparation  produced  and  sold  by  A.  J.  Keubler,  Mt.  Vernon,  In- 
diana, was  tested  on  20  pigs.  The  proprietor  was  present  and  admin- 
istered the  material  on  August  19,  1914.  Ten  pigs  were  treated  with  the 
remedy  and  10  were  left  untreated  as  control  pigs.  Five  pigs  in  each  lot 
received  one  cubic  centimeter  of  hog  cholera  blood  each,  intramuscularly, 
and  the  others  were  subjected  to  pen  exposure.  Seven  treated  pigs  and 
seven  control  pigs  died  and  showed  lesions  of  hog  cholera  upon  post- 
mortem examination  and  six  pigs  survived. 

The  test  showed  the  preparation  to  be  without  value  as  a cure  or 
preventive  for  hog  cholera. 


Tabee  X. — Data  Obtained  in  Test  of  a Preparation  Prepared  by 

A.  J . Keubler 


Hog 

number 

Method  of  infection 

Treated  and 
untreated 

Results 

505 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

died  11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

506 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

died  20th  day;  cholera  lesions 

507 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

died  23rd  day;  cholera  lesions 

508 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

lived 

509 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

lived 

510 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  9th  day;  cholera  lesions 

511 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

512 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  16th  day;  cholera  lesions 

513 

pen  exposure 

treated 

lived 

514 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  14th  day;  cholera  lesions 

516 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

died  21st  day;  cholera  lesions 

517 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

lived 

518 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

died  14th  day;  cholera  lesions 

519 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

died  18th  day;  cholera  lesions 

520 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

lived 

521 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

died  8th  day;  cholera  lesions 

522 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

lived 

523 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

525 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  10th  day;  cholera  lesions 

526 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  14th  day;  cholera  lesions 

544 

A test  was  made  on  a widely  advertised  material  known  as  544.  pro- 
duced by  the  Thiele  Laboratories,  Columbus,  Ohio,  beginning  December 
21,  1914. 

Eighteen  pigs  were  used,  10  receiving  the  preparation  according  to 
the  manufacturer’s  directions,  each  pig  receiving  10  cubic  centimeters  of 
it  injected  intramuscularly,  and  the  remaining  eight  pigs  left  untreated  as 
controls.  Five  treated  pigs  were  injected  with  one  cubic  centimeter  of 
hog  cholera  blood  each  and  four  control  pigs  were  subjected  to  pen  ex- 
posure. All  the  pigs  in  the  test  died  or  were  killed  and  showed  lesions  of 
hog  cholera  upon  post-mortem  examination. 

A second  test  starting  January  18,  1915,  was  made,  in  which  21  pigs 
were  used,  10  pigs  receiving  the  preparation  according  to  directions  and 
11  pigs  were  used  as  controls.  Five  treated  pigs  and  six  control  pigs 


received  one  cubic  centimeter  of  hog  cholera  blood  each,  injected  in- 
tramuscularly and  the  others  were  subjected  to  pen  exposure.  All  the 
pigs  except  Nos.  205  and  217  used  in  the  test  died  or  were  killed  after 
exhibiting  fatal  symptoms  of  hog  cholera. 

These  two  tests  showed  the  material  to  be  without  value  as  a hog 
cholera  cure  or  preventive.  Tests  made  at  other  state  experiment  sta- 
tions, notably  in  Iowa,  Kentucky  and  Ohio,  gave  the  same  results.  Al- 
though these  tests  showed  that  544  is  not  a preventive  or  cure  for  hog 
cholera,  the  remedy  was  advertised  for  sale  by  one  of  the  leading  agricul- 
tural papers  in  the  country,  although  notified  regarding  the  results  of 
these  tests.  None  of  the  Indiana  farm  papers  advertised  this  preparation. 


Table  XI. — Data  Obtained  in  Test  of  544  (first  test) 


Hog 

number 

Method  of  infection 

Treated  and 
untreated 

Results 

941 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

killed 

10th  day;  cholera  lesions 

443 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

killed 

10th  day;  cholera  lesions 

944 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

killed 

10th  day;  cholera  lesions 

945 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

killed 

10th  day;  cholera  lesions 

946 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

killed 

10th  day;  cholera  lesions 

947 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died 

14th  day;  cholera  lesions 

949 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died 

14th  day;  cholera  lesions 

950 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died 

18th  day;  cholera  lesions 

952 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died 

14th  day;  cholera  lesions 

953 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died 

16th  day;  cholera  lesions 

954 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

killed 

8th  day;  cholera  lesions 

955 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

killed 

10th  day;  cholera  lesions 

956 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

killed 

10th  day;  cholera  lesions 

958 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

killed 

9th  day;  cholera  lesions 

959 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died 

17th  day;  cholera  lesions 

960 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died 

16th  day;  cholera  lesions 

962 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died 

18th  day;  cholera  lesions 

963 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died 

20th  day;  cholera  lesions 

13 


Table  XII. — Data  Obtained  in  Test  of  544  (second  test) 


Hog 

Method  of  infection 

Treated  and 

Results 

number 

untreated 

205 

pen  exposure 

treated 

lived 

206 

pen  exposure 

treated 

killed 

9th  day;  cholera  lesions 

207 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died 

24th  day;  cholera  lesions 

208 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died 

12th  day;  cholera  lesions 

209 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died 

11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

210 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

killed 

10th  day;  cholera  lesions 

211 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

killed 

10th  day;  cholera  lesions 

212 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

killed 

10th  day;  cholera  lesions 

213 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

killed 

9th  day;  cholera  lesions 

214 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

died 

12th  day;  cholera  lesions 

215 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died 

14th  day;  cholera  lesions 

216 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died 

19th  day;  cholera  lesions 

217 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

lived 

218 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died 

13th  day;  cholera  lesions 

219 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died 

13th  day;  cholera  lesions 

220 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

killed 

9th  day;  cholera  lesions 

221 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

died 

11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

222 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

killed 

8th  day;  cholera  lesions 

223 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

killed 

8th  day;  cholera  lesions 

224 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

died 

12th  day;  cholera  lesions 

247 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

died 

13th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Porcine 

A sample  of  a preparation  recommended  for  the  treatment  of  hog 
cholera  produced  by  the  Porcine  Remedy  Company,  Marion,  Ohio,  was 
secured  and  tested  on  20  pigs,  10  of  which  were  injected  with  one  cubic 
centimeter  of  hog  cholera  virus  each  and  10  exposed  to  pen  infection.  All 
of  the  treated  pigs  and  eight  of  the  control  pigs  died  and  showed  exten- 
sive lesions  of  hog  cholera  upon  post-mortem  examination. 

The  material  known  as  Porcine  is  a red  liquid  that  is  injected  in- 
tramuscularly in  20  cubic  centimeter  doses.  The  pigs  used  averaged 
about  70  pounds  in  weight. 

The  preparation  was  shown  upon  test  to  be  without  value  as  a cure 
or  preventive  for  hog  cholera  and  the  manufacturers  discontinued  selling 
it  in  Indiana. 

The  test  began  January  7 and  ended  January  25,  1915. 


14 


Tabus  XIII.- — Data  Obtained  in  Test  of  Porcine 


Hog 

number 

Method  of  infection 

Treated  and 
untreated 

Results 

Y-  9 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  14th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-10 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

lived 

Y-ll 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

lived 

Y-12 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  10th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-13 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  13th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-14 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

died  13th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-15 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

died  8th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-16 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

died  9th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-17 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

died  9th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-18 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

died  9th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-19 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  13th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-20 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  17th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-21 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  18th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-22 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  21st  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-23 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  20th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-24 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

died  10th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-25 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

died  12th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-26 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

died  14th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-27 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

died  10th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-28 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

died  12th  day;  cholera  lesions 

John  Dobry’s  Remedy 

A preparation  manufactured  by  the  John  Dobry  Manufacturing 
Company,  Cedar  Rapids,  Iowa,  was  tested  on  20  pigs,  10  being  treated 
with  the  material  according  to  the  directions  of  the  manufacturer  and  10 
used  as  controls.  The  preparation  was  placed  on  test  January  18,  1915. 
Five  of  the  treated  pigs  and  five  of  the  control  pigs  were  injected  with 
one  cubic  cehtimeter  of  hog  cholera  blood  each  and  10  were  subjected  to 
pen  exposure.  On  the  twenty-first  day  of  the  test,  four  of  the  treated 
pigs  and  seven  of  the  control  pigs  were  alive  and  these  were  given  one 
cubic  centimeter  of  hog  cholera  blood  each.  Six  days  later  pig  No.  230 
died,  showing  lesions  of  hog  cholera.  This  was  one  of  the  treated  pigs 
subjected  to  pen  exposure.  In  all,  seven  treated  pigs  and  three  control 
pigs  died. 

A statement  made  by  the  manufacturers  in  advertising  was  as  fol- 
lows : “The  Dobry  Hog  Remedy  is  the  first  and  only  positive  cure  and 
preventive  known  to  the  world.  It  cures  and  prevents  so-called  hog 
cholera  in  its  first  stages,  cures  thumps,  cough,  scours,  and  sick  suckling 
pigs,  makes  sows  bring  strong,  healthy  pigs,  and  makes  pigs  grow  rap- 
idly, and  is  100  per  cent  better  as  preventive  or  cure  than  the  serum 
treatment.” 

The  test  of  this  remedy  proved  that  it  was  not  a cure  or  preventive 
for  hog  cholera  and  could  not  be  recommended  for  a license  in  Indiana. 


15 


Table  XIV. — Data  Obtained  in  Test  of  John  Dobry’s  Remedy 


Hog 

number 

Method  of  infection 

Treated  and 
untreated 

Results 

Y-205 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

died  11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-226 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

died  11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-227 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

lived 

Y-228 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

died  13th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-229 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

treated 

died  11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-230 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  27th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-231 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  15th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-233 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  14th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-234 

pen  exposure 

treated 

lived 

Y-235 

pen  exposure 

treated 

lived 

Y-236 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

lived 

Y-237 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

lived 

Y-238 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

lived 

Y-239 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

lived 

J-24i 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

lived 

Y-242 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

lived 

Y-243 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

died  16th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-244 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

lived 

Y-245 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

died  11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-246 

cholera  blood  inoculation 

untreated 

died  11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Perry's  Swine  Lixir 

Perry’s  Swine  Lixir  was  submitted  by  the  Swine  Elixir  Mfg.  Co., 
Moultrie,  Ga.  The  test  was  begun  October  7,  1915  and  15  pigs  were  used 
in  the  test,  eight  being  treated  with  the  remedy  and  seven  used  as  con- 
trols. The  pigs  were  exposed  to  the  disease  by  placing  them  in  a cholera- 
infected  pen  and  the  preparation  administered  according  to  directions,  one 
teaspoonful  per  hog  twice  weekly.  All  the  control  pigs  and  all  but  one  of 
the  treated  pigs  died  after  showing  fatal  symptoms  of  disease. 

The  results  of  the  test  show  that  this  preparation  is  without  value  as 
a remedy  for  hog  cholera. 


Table  XV. — Data  obtained  in  Test  of  Perry’s  Swine  Lixir 


Hog 

Method  of  infection 

Treated  and 

Results 

number 

untreated 

Y-41 

pen  exposure 

treated 

lived 

Y-43 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  15th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-46 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  16th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-47 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  16th  day  ; cholera  lesions 

Y-50 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  17th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-51 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  14th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-52 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  15th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-53 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  16th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-42 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  17th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-44 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  19th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-45 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  20th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-48 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  18th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-49 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  20th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-54 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  13th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-55 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  16th  day;  cholera  lesions 

i6 


Puritan  Tablets 

John  G.  Taylor,  Hotel  DeSoto,  New  Orleans,  La.,  recommended  a 
preparation  known  as  Puritan  Tablets.  The  remedy  had  not  been  sold 
or  advertised  in  Indiana.  These  tablets  were  fed  to  the  treated  pigs  as 
directed,  20  tablets  in  slop  feed  once  a day,  beginning  October  12,  1915. 

Twenty  pigs  were  used  in  the  test,  10  being  treated  and  10  left  un- 
treated as  controls.  Two  of  the  treated  pigs  and  three  of  the  controls 
survived.  Mr.  Taylor  was  present  at  intervals  but  did  not  superintend 
the  test. 


TabuE  XVI. — Data  Obtained  in  Test  of  Puritan  Tablets 


Hog 

number 

Method  of  infection 

Treated  and 
untreated 

Results 

Y-56 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  18th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-57 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  18th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-59 

pen  exposure 

treated 

lived 

Y-61 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  20th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-63 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-64 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  16th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-65 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-66 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  16th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-69 

pen  exposure 

treated 

lived 

Y-70 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  13th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-58 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  31st  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-60 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  17th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-62 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  18th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-67 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  18th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-68 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  21st  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-72 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

lived 

Y-73 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  20th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-74 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

lived 

Y-75 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

lived 

Y-77 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  15th' ffay;  cholera  lesions 

Cal-Sino  Hog  Restorative 

A preparation  named  Cal-Sino  Hog  Restorative  and  manufactured 
by  the  Cal-Sino  Company,  Inc.,  Baltimore,  Maryland,  was  placed  on  test 
with  29  pigs,  15  of  which  were  treated  with  the  material  according  to 
the  manufacturer’s  directions  and  14  pigs  were  used  as  controls.  The  test 
was  begun  September  29,  1916. 

The  material  is  a brownish  powder  and  the  recommendations  accom- 
panying it  call  for  a daily  dose  of  a heaping  tablespoonful  of  the  remedy, 
mixed  with  ground  feed,  for  each  200  pounds  live  weight.  The  litera- 
ture advertising  the  preparation  makes  no  direct  statement  that  the  remedy 
will  prevent  or  cure  hog  cholera,  but  the  statements  made  are  so  worded 
as  to  lead  the  reader  to  understand  that  the  preparation  is  effective  in 
curing  or  preventing  the  disease. 

On  the  cover  of  a booklet  describing  this  material  is  printed : 

“How  you  can  prevent  and  cure  cholera  with  Cal-Sino  Hog  Restora- 
tive and  get  your  pork  production  up  to  the  top  notch.” 


1 7 


All  of  the  test  pigs  were  killed  when  fatal  symptoms  of  hog  cholera 
were  exhibited,  from  the  fourth  to  the  eighth  day.  Several  of  these  pigs 
showed  high  'body  temperatures  the  day  the  test  was  started.  The  average 
maximum  temperature  between  the  first  and  fifth  days  of  this  lot  of  pigs 
was  104.7  degrees. 

The  result  of  the  test  proved  that  hog  cholera  cannot  be  cured  by 
using  Cal-Sino  Hog  Restorative. 


Table  XVII. — Data  Obtained  in  Test  of  Cal-Sino  Hog  Restorative 


Hog 

number 

Method  of  infection 

Treated  and 
untreated 

Results 

395 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

killed 

4th  day;  cholera  lesions 

396 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

killed 

8th  day;  cholera  lesions 

397 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

killed 

5th  day;  cholera  lesions 

398 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

killed 

7th  day;  cholera  lesions 

399 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

killed 

7th  day;  cholera  lesions 

400 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

killed 

7th  day;  cholera  lesions 

403 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

killed 

7th  day;  cholera  lesions 

404 1 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

killed 

4th  day;  cholera  lesions 

405 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

killed 

7th  day;  cholera  lesions 

406 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

killed 

7th  day;  cholera  lesions 

407 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

killed 

7th  day;  cholera  lesions 

408 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

killed 

7th  day;  cholera  lesions 

409 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

killed 

7th  day;  cholera  lesions 

410 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

killed 

10th  day;  cholera  lesions 

426 1 

pen  exposure 

treated 

killed 

6th  day;  cholera  lesions 

427 

pen  exposure 

treated 

killed 

7th  day;  cholera  lesions 

428 

pen  exposure 

treated 

killed 

7th  day;  cholera  lesions 

429 1 

pen  exposure 

treated 

killed 

7th  day;  cholera  lesions 

430 

pen  exposure 

treated 

killed 

6th  day;  cholera  lesions 

431 

pen  exposure 

treated 

killed 

8th  day;  cholera  lesions 

432 

pen  exposure 

treated 

killed 

7th  day;  cholera  lesions 

433 1 

pen  exposure 

treated 

killed 

4th  day;  cholera  lesions 

434 

pen  exposure 

treated 

killed 

6th  day;  cholera  lesions 

435 

pen  exposure 

treated 

killed 

7th  day;  cholera  lesions 

436 1 

pen  exposure 

treated 

killed 

6th  day;  cholera  lesions 

437 

pen  exposure 

treated 

killed 

7th  day;  cholera  lesions 

438 

pen  exposure 

treated 

killed 

7th  day;  cholera  lesions 

439 

pen  exposure 

treated 

killed 

7th  day;  cholera  lesions 

4401 

pen  exposure 

treated 

killed 

6th  day;  cholera  lesions 

1 Hogs  Nols.  404,  426,  429,  433,  436  and  440  had  abnormal  body  temperatures  the  first 
day  of  the  test 


Bourbon  Remedy 

A sample  of  Bourbon  Remedy  manufactured  by  the  Bourbon  Remedy 
Company,  Lexington,  Kentucky,  was  secured  from  a distributor  and  test- 
ed on  20  pigs,  10  of  which  were  treated  with  the  preparation  according 
to  directions  and  io  remained  as  control  pigs.  The  test  was  started  April 
3,  1916.  All  the  pigs  were  subjected  to  pen  exposure.  Six  of  the  treated 
pigs  and  eight  of  the  control  pigs  died  and  exhibited  lesions  of  hog  cholera 
upon  post-mortem  examination. 

The  literature  of  the  manufacturer  makes  the  following  statements : 

“One  cholera  germ  divides  into  four  germs  in  twenty  minutes.  These 
again  subdivide  into  sixteen  others  in  twenty  minutes,  so  that  if  this  rate 


i8 


is  steadily  maintained,  a single  germ  becomes  four  thousand  in  two  hours, 
and  one  thousand  billions  in  ten  hours.  An  animal  affected  with  cholera 
is  literally  ‘eaten  up  alive’  by  these  germs.  Filling  the  intestines  in 
countless  numbers,  their  ravages  in  two  or  three  days  so  disarrange  the 
system  that  the  secretion  of  gastric  juice  is  suspended,  and  the  germs 
reenter  the  stomach  in  safety;  then  follows  vomiting,  collapse  and  death. 

Special  Instructions 

Cholera  in  hogs  is  similar  to  typhoid  fever  in  human  beings.  In 
treating  this  disease  the  care  and  nursing  of  the  sick  is  fully  as  important 
as  the  administering  of  medicines. 

The  infected  animals  should  be  provided  with  clean,  dry,  comfort- 
able quarters.  To  prevent  over-heating  by  crowding  and  subsequent 
chilling,  the  animals  should  be  separated  as  much  as  possible  and  not 
more  than  three  or  four  should  be  kept  in  each  pen  or  stall.  The  disease 
produces  an  intense  thirst  and  if  allowed  free  access  to  water,  the  animals 
will  swill  it  and  thus  dilute  and  weaken  the  gastric  juice  which  is  their 
natural  and  only  defense  against  the  cholera  germ.  If  too  much  food  is 
given  them  the  gastric  juice  will  be  used  up  for  digestion  purposes  and 
a sufficient  excess  will  not  be  available  for  destroying  the  cholera  bacilli. 
Therefore,  cholera  infected  hogs  should  be  kept  confined  where  they  can 
get  no  food  or  drink  except  that  which  is  given  them.  As  the  disease  pro- 
gresses, ulcers  and  lesions  are  formed  in  the  animal’s  intestines  and  the 
irritation  produced  by  the  passage  of  partly  digested  food  causes  violent 
diarrhea.  Corn,  or  other  solid  food,  given  to  the  hogs  at  this  stage  of 
the  disease  aggravates  this  condition  and  causes  death  by  rupture  of  the 
bowels. 

The  exercise  of  a little  common  sense  in  caring  for  cholera  infected 
animals  and  protecting  them  from  exposure  to  unfavorable  conditions 
and  a regular  and  careful  treatment  with  Bourbon  Hog  Cholera  Remedy 
before  the  disease  has  gone  too  far,  will  produce  remarkably  satisfactory 
results. 

The  dose  of  this  medicine  for  a sick  hog  is  one  (i)  tablespoonful, 
diluted  in  as  much  milk  or  gruel  as  the  hog  will  drink,  and  each  and  every 
hog  in  cholera  infected  herds  should  be  given  this  amount  of  medicine 
twice  a day  morning  and  evening. 

From  ten  days  to  two  weeks  is  required  to  effect  a cure,  according  to 
the  virulence  of  the  disease  and  the  condition  of  the  animals  when  treat- 
ment is  begun.” 

The  result  of  the  test  shows  that  this  medicinal  preparation  is  neither 
a cure  or  preventive  for  hog  cholera. 


19 


Table  XVIII. — Data  Obtained  in  Test  of  Bourbon  Remedy 


Hog 

number 

Method  of  infection 

Treated  and 
untreated 

Results 

Y-543 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  13th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-544 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  15th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-545 

pen  exposure 

treated 

lived 

Y-546 

pen  exposure 

treated 

lived 

Y-547 

pen  exposure 

treated 

lived 

Y-548 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  23rd  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-549 

pen  exposure 

treated 

lived 

Y-550 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-551 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  18th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-552 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  13th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-553 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  13th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-554 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  13th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-555 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-556 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

lived 

Y-557 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-558 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-559 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

lived 

Y-560 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  10th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-561 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-562 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Posalti 

A preparation  known  as  Posalti  recommended  by  Frank  J.  Cosgrove, 
South  Bend,  Indiana,  was  tested,  using  20  pigs,  10  of  which  were  treated 
and  10  used  as  controls.  The  test  was  begun  April  4,  1916.  The  pigs 
were  subjected  to  pen  exposure,  being  placed  in  cholera  infected  pens. 
Mr.  Cosgrove  was  present,  administered  his  material  and  superintended 
the  feeding  of  the  pigs.  When  the  treated  pigs  refused  feed,  he  tried 
drenching  them  with  the  remedy,  and  pigs  Nos.  574,  578,  579,  and  580 
died  as  a result  of  the  drench  going  into  the  lungs.  On  post-mortem,  how- 
ever, these  pigs  showed  the  usual  lesions  of  hog  cholera.  The  control  pigs 
were  killed  when  fatal  symptoms  of  hog  cholera  were  evident  and  the 
treated  pigs  were  allowed  to  die.  The  directions  furnished  by  the  pro- 
ducers were  as  follows : 

“Administer  in  each  feed  one-half  ounce  of  Posalti  remedy  per  hog. 
Feed  one-third  pound  middlings  mixed  with  two  quarts  of  skimmed  milk 
preferred.  If  skimmed  milk  can  not  be  obtained  two  quarts  of  tepid 
water  can  be  used.  Feed  3 times  daily — 8 A.  M.,  12  M.,  and  4 P.  M. 

After  two  weeks  of  Posalti  treatment,  begin  to  give  a little  more 
solid  food  with  the  slop  or  soft  food  and  increase  gradually  to  proper 
proportion  of  solid  foods. 

If  hogs  will  not  eat,  set  them  on  rear  end,  pry  mouth  open  with 
stick,  pour  pints  of  water  containing  iy2  ozs.  of  Posalti  into  hog.” 

All  treated  pigs  died  from  the  ninth  to  the  thirteenth  days,  and  seven 
of  the  control  pigs  were  killed  when  fatal  symptoms  of  hog  cholera  ap- 
peared. Three  control  pigs  survived. 

The  result  of  the  test  shows  that  Posalti  is  not  a cure  or  preventive 
for  hog  cholera. 


20 


Table;  XIX. — Data  Obtained  in  Test  of  Posalti 


Hog 

number 

Method  of  infection 

Treated  and 
untreated 

Results 

Y-563 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

killed 

10th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-564 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

killed 

13th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-565 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

killed 

11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-566 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

killed 

11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-567 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

lived 

Y-568 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

lived 

Y-569 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

killed 

11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-570 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

killed 

11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-571 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

killed 

11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-572 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

lived 

Y-573 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died 

9th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-574 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died 

11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-575 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died 

10th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-576 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died 

10th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-577 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died 

10th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-578 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died 

11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-579 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died 

11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-580 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died 

13th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-581 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died 

12th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Y-582 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died 

10th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Preparation  Prepared  by  H.  W.  Metzeer  * 

A preparation  prepared  by  H.  W.  Metzler,  Champaign,  Illinois,  was 
tested  on  20  pigs,  10  of  which  were  treated  and  10  used  as  controls.  The 
pigs  were  exposed  to  pen  infection.  Mr.  Metzler  was  present  and  ad- 
ministered the  material  which  was  given  in  the  feed.  When  several  of 
the  treated  pigs  refused  feed,  Pigs  Nos.  669,  670,  671,  675,  and  676  re- 
ceived the  remedy  in  a drench.  On  the  twentieth  day  but  two  of  the 
treated  pigs  were  alive,  while  eight  of  the  untreated  pigs  were  living.  It 
would  thus  appear  that  the  preparation  had  a harmful  effect  in  treating 
cholera  pigs. 

The  directions  given  by  the  manufacturer  on  the  bottle  labels  were 
as  follows : “Give  four  tablespoons  of  the  remedy  to  every  gallon  of 
water  or  swill  three  times  a week.  If  cholera  appears  in  the  neighbor- 
hood increase  the  dose  to  one  ounce  (fluid  measure)  and  give  daily.” 
Additional  instructions  given  were  as  follows : “Increase  the  dose  one- 
fourth  ounce  to  each  gallon,  every  feed  until  the  hogs  refuse  to  take  it. 
Then  feed  along  at  the  biggest  dose  that  they  will  take.  Include  same 
dose  in  all  drinking  water  given  to  them.” 

On  the  conclusion  of  the  test  all  treated  and  all  control  pigs  had  died, 
and  it  was  shown  that  this  remedy  was  without  value  in  treating  pigs  af- 
fected with  the  cholera  or  in  preventing  the  disease. 


21 


Table:  XX. — Data  Obtained  in  Test  of  a Preparation  Prepared  by 

H.  W.  Metzler 


Hog 

number 

Method  of  infection 

Treated  and 
untreated 

Results 

G-689 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-670 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  17th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-671 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-672 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  15th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-673 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  15th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-674 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  21st  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-675 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  15th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-676 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  13th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-677 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  12th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-678 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  21st  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-679 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  13th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-680 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  21st  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-681 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  10th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-682 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  21st  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-683 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  21st  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-685 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  21st  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-686 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  21st  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-687 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  21st  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-688 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  21st  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-689 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died  21st  day;  cholera  lesions 

Kol-Kur 

A preparation  known  as  Kol-Kur  produced  by  Chas.  Billingsley, 
Princeton,  Indiana,  was  delivered  to  the  Station  by  the  proprietor 
for  a test.  The  material  was  placed  on  test  November  20,  1916.  Twenty 
pigs  were  used  in  the  test,  10  receiving  treatment  according  to  directions 
and  the  others  left  untreated  for  controls.  All  the  pigs  were  subjected 
to  pen  exposure  and  all  died,  showing  hog  cholera  lesions  upon  post- 
mortem examination. 

The  result  of  the  test  shows  Kol-Kur  to  be  without  value  in  curing 
or  preventing  hog  cholera. 

Pigs  Nos.  750  and  752  were  killed  on  the  eighth  day. 


22 


Table  XXL — Data  Obtained  in  Test  of  Kol-Kur 


Hog 

number 

Method  of  infection 

Treated  and 
untreated 

Results 

G-739 

pen 

exposure 

treated 

died  18th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-740 

pen 

exposure 

treated 

died  16th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-741 

pen 

exposure 

treated 

died  16th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-742 

pen 

exposure 

treated 

died  9th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-743 

pen 

exposure 

treated 

died  14th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-744 

pen 

exposure 

treated 

died  19th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-745 

pen 

exposure 

treated 

died  15th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-747 

pen 

exposure 

treated 

died  16th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-748 

pen 

exposure 

treated 

died  18th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-756 

pen 

exposure 

treated 

died  19th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-749 

pen 

exposure 

untreated 

died  18th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-750 

pen 

exposure 

untreated 

died  8th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-751 

pen 

exposure 

untreated 

died  17th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-752 

pen 

exposure 

untreated 

died  8th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-753 

pen 

exposure 

untreated 

died  19th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-754 

pen 

exposure 

untreated 

died  18th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-746 

pen 

exposure 

untreated 

died  15th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-759 

pen 

exposure 

untreated 

died  16th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-849 

pen 

exposure 

untreated 

died  19th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-S51 

pen 

exposure 

untreated 

died  19th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Preparation  Prepared  by  Mrs.  Harry  Condit 

A preparation  recommended  for  the  treatment  of  hog  cholera  by 
Mrs.  Harry  Condit  of  Vincennes,  Indiana,  was  tested  on  20  pigs,  10  of 
which  received  the  preparation  and  10  used  for  controls.  The  test  was 
begun  December  13,  1916.  The  pigs  were  subjected  to  pen  exposure  and 
eight  of  the  treated  pigs  and  nine  of  the  control  pigs  died,  showing  exten- 
sive lesions  of  hog  cholera  upon  post-mortem  examination. 

The  material  was  administered  according  to  directions  furnished  by 
Mrs.  Condit  as  follows: 

“For  twenty  head  put  three  heaping  tablespoonsful  in  a bucket  of 
scalded  bran,  or  if  bowels  are  loose  put  it  in  the  slop,  or  a handful  of  soft 
soap  mixed  to  a paste  with  the  same  quantity  of  the  powder,  and  put 
it  in  a trough  or  where  they  can  easily  get  to  it — will  be  eagerly  devoured ; 
they  will  take  this  when  they  will  touch  nothing  else.  According  to  sick- 
ness increase  the  amount  given.  If  hogs  are  down  and  can’t  get  up  to 
eat,  give  from  a tablespoon.” 

The  result  of  the  test  shows  the  remedy  to  be  without  merit  as  a 
cure  or  preventive  for  hog  cholera. 


23 


Table  XXII. — Data  Obtained  in  Test  of  a Preparation  Prepared  by 

Mrs.  Harry  Condit 


Hog 

number 

Method  of  infection 

Treated  and 
untreated 

Results 

G-866 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died 

15th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-867 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died 

16th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-868 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died 

19th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-869 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died 

17th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-870 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died 

19th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-871 

pen  exposure 

treated 

lived 

G-872 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died 

14th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-873 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died 

13th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-874 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died 

17th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-875 

pen  exposure 

treated 

lived 

G-877 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

lived 

G-878 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died 

21st  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-879 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

killed 

14th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-880 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

killed 

14th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-881 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died 

18th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-882 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died 

21st  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-883 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died 

17th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-884 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died 

21st  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-885 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died 

14th  day;  cholera  lesions 

G-886 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

died 

21st  day;  cholera  lesions 

Cholerine 

A sample  of  Cholerine,  a preparation  recommended  by  the  proprie- 
tors for  the  treatment  of  hog  cholera,  was  secured  through  a practicing 
veterinarian  from  the  manufacturers,  A.  S.  Horowitz  Chemical  Company, 
17  E.  38th  St.,  New  York  City,  and  tested  on  18  pigs.  The  test  was  begun 
September  5,  1917.  Nine  pigs  were  treated  with  the  remedy  according 
to  the  directions  of  the  manufacturers,  2.0  cubic  centimeters  being  in- 
jected into  each  pig,  and  the  remaining  pigs  were  left  as  controls.  Two  of 
the  treated  pigs  and  one  of  the  control  pigs  lived.  The  untreated  pigs 
were  killed  when  they  showed  fatal  symptoms  of  cholera. 

The  test  showed  that  Cholerine  is  without  value  as  a cure  or  preven- 
tive for  hog  cholera. 

The  Wm.  S.  Merrill  Chemical  Company,  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  has  been 
advertising  CholeRem  for  the  prevention  and  treatment  of  hog  cholera 
during  the  past  year.  The  advertising  literature  sent  out  by  this  firm 
states  that  this  is  Dr.  A.  S.  Horowitz’s  preparation.  CholeRem  is  prob- 
ably the  same  preparation  as  Cholerine. 


24 


Table  XXIII. — Data  Obtained  in  Test  of  Cholerine 


Hog 

number 

Method  of  infection 

Treated  and 
untreated 

Results 

M-481 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

killed  11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

M-482 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

killed  11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

M-483 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

killed  10th  day;  cholera  lesions 

M-484 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

killed  10th  day;  cholera  lesions 

M-485 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

killed  11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

M-486 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

lived 

M-487 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

killed  11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

M-488 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

killed  11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

M-489 

pen  exposure 

untreated 

killed  11th  day;  cholera  lesions 

M-490 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  14th  day;  cholera  lesions 

M-491 

pen  exposure 

treated 

lived 

M-492 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  15th  day;  cholera  lesions 

M-493 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  15th  day;  cholera  lesions 

M-494 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  15th  day;  cholera  lesions 

M-495 

pen  exposure 

treated 

lived 

M-496 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  19th  day;  cholera  lesions 

M-497 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  15th  day;  cholera  lesions 

M-498 

pen  exposure 

treated 

died  15th  day;  cholera  lesions 

Table  XXIV. — Summary  of  Results  Obtained  in  Tests  of  Twenty  Dif- 
ferent Preparations  Recommended  for  the  Cure  or  Prevention 
of  Hog  Cholera 


Remedy 

Number  hogs  in 
test 

Number  test  hogs 
died 

treated 

un- 

treated 

treated 

un- 

treated 

Cunningham  Hog  Cholera  Remedy 

13 

13 

12 

13 

National  23  (first  test) 

7 

6 

0 

0 

National  23  (second  test)  _ 

3 

2 

3 

2 

U.  S.  Specific 

4 

4 

4 

4 

American  Specific  No.  2 

4 

4 

3 

3 ' 

Blue  Moon  Hog  Corrector 

4 

4 

4 

4 

Preparation  prepared  by  S.  H.  Colbert 

10 

10 

7 

8 

Crozier’s  Hog  Cholera  Cure 

10 

10 

7 

7 

Vaxall  (first  test) 

10 

10 

5 

4 

Vaxall  (second  test)  _ 

10 

10 

4 

6 

Preparation  prepared  by  A.  J.  Kuebler 

10 

10 

7 

7 

544  (first  test)  ___  _ _ _ 

10 

8 

10 

8 

544  (second  test)  _ _ _ _ _ _ 

10 

11 

9 

10 

Porcine 

10 

10 

10 

8 

John  Dobry’s  Remedy  

10 

10 

7 

3 

Perry’s  Swine  Lixir 

8 

7 

7 

7 

Puritan  Tablets  _ 

10 

10 

8 

7 

Cal-Sino  Hog  Restorative 

15 

14 

15 

14 

Bourbon  Remedy  _ _ 

10 

10 

6 

8 

Posalti 

10 

10 

10 

7 

Preparation  prepared  by  H.  W.  Metzler 

10 

10 

10 

10 

Kol-Kur  

10 

10 

10 

10 

Preparation  prepared  by  Mrs.  Harry  Condit-— 

10 

10 

8 

9 

Cholerine  _______ 

9 

9 

7 

8 

Totals  _ _ 

235 

227 

187 

179 

Acknowledgment  is  made  to  Dr.  H.  C.  Paine  who  was  in  charge  of 
the  test  pigs  up  to  June  i,  1917 


purdue  vmmumnrnrn 

Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


v)UL 


Bulletin  No.  224 
September,  1918 


Fig.  1.  An  ear-to-row  test  showing  a diseased  row  between  two  healthy  ones,  plant- 
ed from  a good  looking  ear  which  germinated  100  per  cent.  The  yields  of  fields  throughout 
the  Corn  Belt  are  reduced  by  using  seed  from  ears  that  are  infested  or  weakened  by  harm- 
ful organisms 


SELECTION  OF  DISEASE-FREE  SEED  CORN 


Published  by  the  Station: 
LAFAYETTE,  INDIANA 
U.  S.  A. 


SUMMARY 

Indiana  corn  yields  are  greatly  reduced  by  hitherto  little  under- 
stood disease-producing  organisms. 

The  planting  of  seed  infested  with  these  organisms  is,  in  a great 
measure,  responsible  for  missing  hills,  slow-growing  stalks,  barren 
stalks,  down-stalks,  nubbins,  early  blighting  of  plants  in  the  field  with 
the  large  reduction  in  yield  which  these  conditions  bring  about. 

The  same  organism  which  causes  scab  of  wheat  also  causes  rot  of 
the  stalks,  ears,  and  ear-shanks  of  corn  plants.  Wheat  planted  in 
fields  of  diseased  corn  has  more  scab  than  occurs  when  the  corn  fields 
are  free  from  scab-producing  organism. 

The  ear-to-row  method  is  recommended  for  studying  the  quality 
and  value  of  seed  ears.  The  selection  of  seed  ears  from  disease-free 
stalks  is  recommended  and  explained. 

By  a careful  study  of  germinating  seedlings  it  is  possible  to  dis- 
card from  seed  stock  ears  carrying  disease-producing  organisms.  The 
bulletin  explains  how  this  may  be  done. 

The  type  of  germinator  which  serves  best  for  this  method  of  test- 
ing seed  corn  is  also  described  and  illustrated.  Its  use  is  recommended 
to  all  farmers  who  are  interested  in  corn  improvement  and  especially 
to  seed  corn  breeders. 

These  facts  had  in  a large  measure  been  developed  by  investiga- 
tions carried  on  by  the  authors  during  the  past  five  years,  and  in  1917, 
this  work  was  organized  as  an  Experiment  Station  project. 


3 


SELECTION  OF  DISEASE-FREE  SEED  CORN1 


George  N.  Hoefer  J.  R.  Holbert 

Many  fields  of  corn  in  the  Corn  Belt  states  do  not  give  the  yields 
which  their  fertility  and  the  attention  given  them  in  cultivation  would 
justify.  Considerable  care  may  be  used  in  selecting  seed  for  planting,  but 
too  many  missing  hills  and  slow-growing  stalks  result.  This  has  often 
been  attributed  to  injuries  from  birds,  root  insects,  and  rodents,  but  re- 
cent studies  on  these  troubles  that  have  been  made  by  Purdue  University 
Agricultural  Experiment  Station  in  cooperation  with  the  Office  of  Cer- 
eal Investigations,  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture,  show  that 
while  these  injuries  are  important,  there  are  other  definite,  harmful  or- 
ganisms which  are  responsible  for  disappointing  stands  and  unprofitable 
yields. 

When  careful  studies  are  made  on  seed  ears,  even  those  ears  of  high 
score  card  value,  to  determine  their  field  performances  by  planting  them 
by  the  ear-to-row  method,  it  is  apparent  at  once  that  some  ears  have  high 
yielding  ability,  while  others  are  of  low  power.  The  yield  obtained  in 
any  field  of  corn  is  always  the  average  of  the  yielding  capacities  of  all 
the  ears  planted.  The  low  yielding  ears  are  most  often  those  which  had 
been  taken  from  weakened  parent  stalks.  This  weakness  may  be  due  to 
the  results  of  freezing  or  to  injuries  to  the  stalks  caused  by  harmful  or- 
ganisms* such  as  fungi  and  bacteria. 

EFFECTS  OF  PARASITIC  ORGANISMS  ON  CORN  PLANTS 

The  effects  of  certain  fungi  on  the  corn  plants  may  be  very  marked. 
They  may  be  observed  readily  in  the  form  of  smut,  rust,  broken  ear 
shanks,  broken  stalks,  and  down-stalks  which  may  be  distributed  irregu- 
larly through  a field.  Other  harmful  organisms  may  cause  less  striking 
effects  on  the  plants.  Inconspicuous  rotting  ;of  the  stalks,  of  the  ears, 
and  of  the  roots,  may  take  place  with  no  apparent  injury.  The  ears, 
however,  which  are  borne  on  such  diseased  plants  are  weakened.  Per- 
haps the  weakness  is  not  enough  to  show  decreased  vitality  on  the  germin- 
ator,  but  is  evident  in  the  field  performance  of  the  seed  when  taken  from 
the  ear  and  planted  the  following  season. 

The  kernels  from  ears  borne  on  diseased  plants  will  have  seedling 
characteristics  which  can  be  noted  usually  on  the  germinator.  These 
seedling  features  and  certain  physical  characters  of  the  seed  serve  as  a 
basis  for  discarding  for  seed  purposes  the  incompletely  matured  ears 
formed  on  diseased  stalks,  since  it  has  been  shown  that  one  effect  of  the 
rot-producing  organisms  may  be  to  delay  maturity.  In  contrast  with 
such  ears,  those  kernels  from  disease-free  mother  plants  do  not  show  the 

1 The  work  reported  in  this  publication  is  the  result  of  cooperation  between  the  Bu- 
reau of  Plant  Industry  of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture,  and  the  Purdue 
University  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


4 


Fig.  2.  Two  infested  seedlings  which  died  soon  after  germinating.  This  blighting 
causes  poor  stands 


abnormal  conditions  referred  to  above,  and  always  give  good  germination 
on  the  germinator,  provided  no  injury,  such  as  freezing,  has  occurred. 

The  difference  between  infested  and  disease-free  seed  is  very  strik- 
ing in  fields  where  seedlings  die  early  and  where  the  plants  blight  while 
young.  Some  plants  may  remain  stunted  during  the  entire  growing  sea- 
son. Fig.  2 shows  some  plants  which  died  early.  Ordinarily  these  plants 
are  not  noticed  before  the  first  cultivation.  At  this  time,  however,  plants 
as  shown  in  Fig.  3 may  be  found.  The  roots  and  bases  of  such  young 
stunted  stalks  are  rotted,  as  shown  in  Fig.  4. 

For  permanent  corn  improvement,  only  ears  from  disease-free  stalks 
should  be  used  for  seed  purposes.  Improvement  by  this  means,  at  first 
thought,  may  appear  difficult  to  accomplish.  There  are  two  methods  of 
selection  of  good  seed  ears,  both  of  which,  from  the  present  state  of 
knowledge,  should  be  followed  to  insure  freedom  from  disease. 

1.  Mature  ears  on  disease-free  stalks  should  be  selected  for  plant- 
ing. It  is  assumed  that  the  variety  of  corn  is  one  which  is  adapted  to 
the  soil  and  climatic  conditions  of  the  locality  where  it  is  grown  and  that 
it  will  mature  in  a normal  season.  Ears  should  never.be  selected  from 
smutted  stalks,  or  from  stalks  which  are  rotted  or  whose  roots  are  rotted. 
Neither  should  ears  be  selected  which  have  rotted,  broken  shanks  as  noted 
in  Fig.  8.  Many  root-rotted  plants  die  prematurely.  The  rotting 
of  the  stalk  can  be  observed  by  cutting  down  through  the  plant  and 
splitting  it  open.  If  the  inner  portion  of  the  stalk,  especially  at  the  lower 
nodes  or  “joints,”  at  the  base  of  the  stalk,  shows  a brown  discoloration, 
the  presence  of  a harmful  organism  in  the  plant  is  indicated.  A mature 
ear  on  a living  green  stalk  is  always  best  for  seed  purposes. 


Fig.  3.  An  infected  seedling  is  indicated 
by  early  stunting.  A barren  stalk  is 
usually  the  result 


Fig.  4.  A stunted  stalk  cut  lengthwise 
through  the  base  to  show  the  rot  resulting 
from  a primary  infection 


2.  A more  critical  study  of  the  results  of  the  germination  test  can 
be  made  than  has  been  the  habit  in  the  past.  It  has  been  found  that 
ears  may  have  perfect  germination  and  yet  give  low  yields  in  the  field; 
such  ears  have  an  unusual  susceptibility  to  rot-causing  organisms  on  the 
germinator.  The  seedlings  from  such  ears  may  develop  molds  upon  them 
and  if  they  are  cut  through  with  a sharp  knife  at  the  time  the  normal 
seedlings  are  three  or  four  inches  in  height,  the  rot  will  be  noticed  de- 
veloping in  the  embryos  of  infected  seedlings.  This  infection  caused  by 
harmful  organisms,  actually  upon  or  within  the  seed-kernels,  is  called 
primary  infection.  This  early  rotting  of  the  seedling,  the  result  of  primary 
infection,  is  a germination  characteristic  by  u’hich  the  infested  weak  ears 
may  be  discarded  before  planting. 

Ears  from  diseased  stalks  may  have  kernels  bearing  harmful  molds 
and  bacteria  in  a relatively  inconspicuous  manner.  The  kernels  may 
germinate,  but  at  germination  time,  the  young  seedlings  may  be  invaded 
readily  because  of  this  close  relation.  Then  again,  some  ears  may  be 
free  of  any  harmful  organisms,  but  having  been  formed  on  a diseased 
parent-stalk,  the  seedlings  growing  from  these  ears  are  less  resistant  to 
infection  and  may,  therefore,  become  infected  readily  on  the  germinator 
and  in  the  field.  Conspicuously  moldy  ears  should  never  be  considered 
for  seed  purposes. 

In  contrast  with  these  infested  ears  are  the  ears  from  disease-free 
plants.  The  seedlings  that  develop  from  kernels  on  such  ears  do  not 
show  the  rotting  of  the  embryo  before  the  plants  are  three  or  four  inches 
in  height.  Figs.  14,  17.  In  other  words,  primary  infection  does  not  occur 
in  the  seedlings  from  ears  borne  on  disease-free  stalks  that  are  not  other- 
wise injured. 


6 


Fig.  5.  A barren,  a normal,  and  a stunted  Fig.  6.  Do  not  select  seed  ears 

stalk  in  the  same  hill  resulting  from  planting  from  smutted  stalks 

two  infested  seeds  with  a healthy  one 

In  the  field,  primary  infections  are  very  common  in  the  plants  from 
weakened  and  infested  seed,  Figs.  2 and  3.  If  the  seeds  are  not  weakened 
or  infested  with  harmful  organisms,  the  seedlings  and  plants  will  make 
good  progress  in  growth  in  the  field,  providing  weather  and  soil  condi- 
tions are  favorable. 

The  infected  seedlings  are  slower  growing,  and  depending  upon  their 
ability  to  overcome  the  effects  of  the  organisms  causing  this  primary  in- 
fection, they  may  struggle  along  during  the  growing  season  and  are  not 
likely  to  produce  good  mature  ears.  The  plants  may  be  permanently 
stunted,  and  such  plants  are  very  common,  or  they  may  be  only  nubbin- 
bearing stalks. 

It  is  this  primary  infection  of  seedlings  in  the  field  through  the  use 
of  infested  seed  which  is  causing  considerable  losses  to  corn  growers. 

During  the  latter  part  of  the  growing  season,  secondary  infections 
occur.  These  infections  are  caused  by  organisms  which  live  in  t#he  soil 
on  the  remnants  of  a preceding  crop,  or  which  have  been  carried  into  the 


7 


soil  on  the  infested  seed  which  was  used  for 
planting.  The  same  organisms  which  cause 
primary  infections  may  also  cause  the  sec- 
ondary rotting  of  the  roots.  It  is  thus  em- 
phasized that  infested  seed  may  be  re- 
sponsible for  both  primary  and  secondary 
troubles  in  the  same  plants.  The  importance 
of  planting  disease-free  seed  is  therefore 
apparent. 

WHEAT  SCAB  RELATION 

Another  phase  of  the  problem,  and  one 
which  adds  greater  emphasis  to  the  desira- 
bility of  having  disease-free  corn  fields,  is 
the  fact  that  the  same  organism  which  causes 
scab  of  wheat  also  causes  a rot  of  the  stalks 
and  ear-shanks  of  corn  plants.  Wheat 
planted  in  diseased  corn  fields  has  more  scab 
in  it  than  when  the  corn  fields  are  free  of 
the  scab-causing  organism,  or  when  it  is 
planted  following  other  crops.  This  inter- 
crop relation  is  one  of  the  most  important 
problems  of  a pathological  nature  connected 
with  the  growing  of  these  crops,  especially 
so  where  winter  wheat  is  planted  in  standing 
rig.  7.  a prematurely  dead  corn.  The  profitable  control  of  wheat  scab 
stalk  with  rotted  base.  Note  may  be  involved  in  the  growing  of  disease- 

tree  corn,  or  in  planting  wheat  on  corn  land 
providing  all  of  the  fodder  will  have  been  removed  completely  during 
the  fall  or  winter. 

METHOD  OF  CORRELATING  GERM  I N ATOR  RESULTS  WITH  FIELD 
PERFORMANCE  OF  THE  SEED  EARS 

The  best  way  to  study  the  field  performance  of  seed  ears  is  by  the 
ear-to-row  plot  method.  Germinator  tests  are  first  made  on  a number 
of  the  kernels,  at  least  30,  taken  from  various  parts  of  the  ears  to  be 
studied.  Enough  of  the  ear  is  shelled  to  plant  a row  of  75  or  100  hills 
in  length  in  the  field.  These  rows  are  kept  under  close  observation  dur- 
ing the  growing  season.  The  various  phenomena  referred  to  in  this  bul- 
letin may  then  be  observed  and  the  effects  of  the  harmful  organisms  on 
the  corn  plants  noted. 

Fig.  11  shows  how  the  results  of  an  ear-to-row  plot  can  be  demon- 
strated at  a field  meeting.  Note  that  the  hard  corn  was  placed  in  the 
front  pile,  the  remnant  ear  was  preserved  in  a tin  can,  the  soft  corn  was 
placed  in  the  back  pile,  and  a 25-pound  sample  was  bagged  for  moisture 
determination. 

Fig.  1 shows  how  striking  the  effects  of  the  root- rots  may  appear  in 
certain  rows.  The  row  of  “down  stalks”  was  bordered  by ‘two  rows  of 
standing  corn.  The  value  of  the  ear-to-row  method  of  study  of  the  dis- 


8 


Fig.  8.  Ears  on  broken  shanks  should  Fig.  9.  Ears  on  broken  shanks  are  frequently  Fig.  10.  Rotted  stalks  and  shanks  are 

not  be  used  for  seed  rotted  * responsible  for  many  nubbins 


9 


Fig.  11.  A well  matured  ear  on  a healthy  shank  is  best  for  seed 


eases  of  corn  is  that  there  is  strikingly  represented  in  the  lives  of  the  in- 
fested plants  the  phenomena  which  are  so  common  in  the  ordinary  fields 
of  corn.  All  gradations  of  injuries  may  be  noted. 

For  seed  corn  purposes  no  infested  and  weakened  ears  should  be 
planted.  These  can  be  detected  and  discarded  before  planting. 

THE  GERMINATOR  TEST 

The  testing  of  seed  corn  on  germinators  has  already  proved  its  worth. 
Bad  ears  are  readily  indicated  in  all  types  of  germinators  when  dead  ker- 
nels are  found  during  the  test.  The  method  of  interpretation  of  the 
germinator  results  recommended  in  this  bulletin  is  applicable  to  all  types 
of  germinators  in  use,  but  is  practiced  most  easily  on  the  type  of  germi- 
nator recommended. 

If  the  seedlings  are  infected  on  the  germinator  and  show  rotting 
of  the  embryo  parts  before  the  plants  are  three  inches  in  height,  as  shown 
in  Figs.  15  and  17,  the  ears  from  which  the  kernels  were  taken  will  show 
weaknesses  in  their  field  performances  according  to  experimental  results 
obtained  to  date. 

The  convenience  with  which  these  readings  may  be  made  is  a mat- 
ter of  much  importance  where  large  numbers  of  ears  are  to  be  tested. 

The  rag-doll  tester  and  the  sand-box  may  be  used  but  in  as  much 
as  it  is  necessary  to  pull  up  the  plants  for  examination,  the  former  is  the 
more  convenient.  But  while  the  rag-doll  is  usable  and  fairly  satisfactory 
for  this  method  of  interpretation  of  the  seed  corn  test,  the  type  of  germi- 
nator where  the  seedlings  can  be  observed  as  a whole,  and  the  readings 
made  directly,  is  the  more  desirable. 


10 


Fig.  12.  A profitable  hill  of  healthy  stalks  planted  from  disease-free  ears 


The  type  of  germinator  suggested  involves  the  use  of  a limestone- 
sawdust  base  to  supply  the  moisture  for  the  germinating  seeds. » The 
germinator  is  very  easily  made  and  requires  very  little  attention  during 
the  germination  test.  It  is  recommended  to  all  farmers  who  are  inter- 
ested in  corn  improvement  and  especially  so  to  those  who  breed  corn  on 
a large  scale. 

The  germinator  requires  more  effort  to  prepare,  as  well  as  more 
space,  than  the  ones  commonly  used,  but  the  advantage  derived  in  being 
able  to  select  disease-free  ears  commends  it  for  this  purpose. 

The  germinator  is  shown  in  Figs.  18,  19,  and  20,  and  consists  of  a 
frame  support  on  which  there  is  a wire  screen.  This  frame  and  screen 
holds  about  a two-inch  layer  of  sawdust  mixed  with  about  one-fourth  of 
its  weight  of  ground  limestone.  The  purpose  of  the  limestone  is  to  keep 
the  sawdust  sweet  and  to  prevent  the  effects  on  the  germinating  seed- 
lings of  the  injurious  substances  which  develop  in  wet  sawdust. 

A sheet  of  heavy  muslin  that  had  been  placed  previously  in  boiling 
water  to  remove  the  starch  is  spread  over  this  limestone-sawdust  layer. 
The  kernels  of  corn  are  placed  on  this  muslin  which  may  be  marked  in 
various  ways  to  indicate  the  position  of  each  of  the  ears  tested,  and  the 


II 


Fig.  13.  An  ear-to-row  test  plot  on  harvest  day.  Note  the  hard  corn,  remnant  ear 
box,  soft  corn  and  bag  for  moisture  sample.  This  is  the  best  method  of  determining  high 
yielding,  disease-free  strains  of  corn  varieties  in  each  locality 

seeds  are  then  covered  by  another  similarly  treated  sheet  of  muslin.  The 
germinator  and  the  sawdust-limestone  substratum  are  then  wet  down 
with  water,  and  to  prevent  rapid  drying  out  are  covered  with  gunny- 
sacks  or  heavy  cloths  for  at  least  two  days.  When  the  corn  germinates, 
these  heavier  cloths  should  be  removed  and  the  seedlings  should  be 
covered  with  the  heavy  muslin  only.  The  germinator  should  be  wet  down 
thoroughly  twice  each  day  while  in  use.  After  the  seedlings  have  grown 
to  a height  of  three  or  four  inches,  they  are  ready  for  observation. 

Those  seedlings  which  have  rotted  embryos  and  stalks  (Figs.  15  and 
16),  indicate  the  ears  to  be  discarded  for  seed  purposes.  By  reading  the 
germinator  on  the  basis  of  these  rotted  seedlings,  and  eliminating  all  of 
the  ears  which  show  this  rot  on  the  germinator,  the  primary  infections 
zvhich  would  otherwise  occur  in  the  field  from  seed  from  such  ears  and 
which  would  considerably  reduce  the  yield  in  the  field,  can  be  prevented. 

The  harmful  organisms  referred  to  in  this  bulletin  are  species  of 
Gibberella,  Fusarium,  Verticillium,  Rhizopus  and  Pseudomonas.  They 
will  be  described  in  a Technical  Bulletin  to  be  published  in  the  near 
future. 


12 


Fig.  14.  A good  vigorous  type  of  seed- 
ling. Note  the  early  development  of 
lateral  rootlets 


A 


Fig.  16.  An  infected  seed- 
ling cut  open  to  show  the 
first  stages  in  the  develop- 
ment of  rot.  Contrast  this 
with  Figure  17 


Fig.  17.  A normal  three-inch  seedling  cut  through 
the  embryo  portion  and  laid  open.  Note  the  healthy  con- 
dition of  the  germ 


i3 


Fig.  18.  A desirable  type  of  germinator.  Note  layer  of  sawdust  and  limestone  on  the 
wire  screen  support 


Fig.  19.  Kernels  in  position  on  damp  cloth  ready  to  start  test.  Heavy  cloths  are 
placed  on  germinator  for  three  days 


Fig.  20.  Germination  test  completed.  At  this  time  infected  seedlings  can  be  noted  and 
the  diseased  ears  discarded 


14 


The  Experiment  Station  Building;.  The  Experiment  Station  was  founded  primarily  to 
develop,  through  investigation  and  research,  new  information  about  agriculture.  Facts  must 
be  discovered  before  they  can  be  taught.  The  main  Station  building  contains  the  head- 
quarters and  laboratories  for  the  administration  of  the  work  of  the  Station.  The  work 
itself  is  conducted  on  the  farms,  in  the  fields,  herds,  and  orchards  of  the  State  as  well  as 
in  the  offices  and  laboratories  at  Purdue 


PUBLICATIONS  AVAILABLE  FOR  FARMERS  INTERESTED  IN 
CORN  CULTURE 


Bulletin  No.  210. 
Bulletin  No.  213. 
Bulletin  No.  222. 
Circular  No.  25. 
Circular  No.  49. 
Circular  No.  66. 
Circular  No.  76. 
Circular  No.  79. 


The  value  of  phosphates  on  Indiana  soils 

The  value  of  lime  on  Indiana  soils 

The  value  of  manure  on  Indiana  soils 

(Revised  edition)  How  to  grow  more  and  better  corn 

Farm  manures 

The  lime  and  fertilizer  needs  of  Indiana  soils 
Increasing  crop  yields  for  war  needs 
Indiana  soils  need  phosphates 


i5 


AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 
CLASSIFICATION  OF  THE  MAILING  LIST 

Owing  to  the  unusual  demand  for  the  bulletins  and  circulars  of  the 
Station,  and  the  limited  funds  available  for  publications,  it  is  necessary 
to  revise  the  mailing  lists  continually  and  send  the  literature  only  to  per- 
sons especially  interested  in  the  particular  subjects  treated. 

It  will  not  be  feasible  to  send  bulletins  on  all  subjects  to  every  name 
on  the  lists. 

If  you  wish  to  receive  the  publications  of  the  Station  please  mark  the 
subjects  in  which  you  are  especially  interested  and  return  this  sheet. 

□ ANIMAL  HUSBANDRY— Beef  Cattle,  Hogs,  Sheep,  Horses 

□ BOTANY — Plant  Diseases,  Weeds 

□ DAIRY  HUSBANDRY— Dairy  Cattle,  Milk,  Butter,  Cheese,  Ice 

Cream 

□ ENTOMOLOGY — Bees,  Hessian  Fly,  Injurious  Insects 

□ FIELD  CROPS — Grains,  Legumes,  and  other  hay  crops.  Varieties 

and  Rotations 

□ HORTICULTURE — Fruits,  Vegetables,  Small  Fruits,  Truck  Crops 

□ POULTRY — Housing,  Feeding,  Egg  Production 

□ SOILS — Lime,  Fertilizers,  Drainage 

□ VETERINARY — Animal  Diseases 

□ REPORTS  OF  FERTILIZER  INSPECTION— State  Chemist  De- 

partment 

□ REPORTS  OF  COMMERCIAL  FEEDING  STUFFS  INSPEC- 

TION— State  Chemist  Department 

□ REPORTS  OF  STALLION  ENROLLMENT  LAW  ADMINIS- 

TRATION 

□ REPORTS  OF  CREAMERY  AND  TESTERS’  LICENSE  LAW 

ADMINISTRATION 

□ Please  send  me  a list  of  publications  which  are  now  available. 

Name  

Post  Office R.  F.  D 

County  , 

State  


NOTE. — A large  number  of  unsigned  requests  have  been  received  from  people  who  wish 
to  have  their  names  on  the  mailing  list.  The  name  and  address  must  be  written  plainly 


i6 


“The  urgent  demand  for  information  for  immediate  appli- 
cation has  revealed  as  the  essential  prerequisite  the  possession  of 
a substantial  fund  of  scientific  knowledge.  It  has  made  it  clear 
that  the  accumulation  of  such  a body  of  knowledge  is  not  a mat- 
ter to  be  improvised  in  an  emergency  but  something  to  be  at- 
tained gradually  by  carefully  planned  investigation.  The  situa- 
tion has  directed  attention  to  what  has  already  been  accomplished 
by  research  institutions  fostered  by  public  funds,  and  has  stimu- 
lated inquiry  and  discussion  as  to  means  for  so  strengthening 
such  institutions  as  to  bring  about  their  maximum  efficiency.” 

E.  W.  ALLEN, 

Experiment  Station  Record 


PURDUE  UNIVERSITY 

Agricultural  Experiment 


0!S  Umar 

JUL  15  ig  jg 


Bulletin  No.  225 
January,  1919 


Fig:.  1.  Looking:  across  the  oats  variety  test  field  on  Purdue  Farm.  The  yield  averaged 
over  80  bushels  per  acre 


SPRING  SMALL  GRAINS  IN  INDIANA 


PMlisM  Dy  tie  station: 
LAFAYETTE,  INDIANA 
U.  S.  A. 


The  climate  of  Indiana,  as  a general  rule,  is  too  warm  for  the  satis- 
factory development  of  the  spring  small  grains  and  with  the  exception 
of  oats  and  barley  in  the  northern  portion  of  the  State,  they  are  not 
to  be  recommended  for  general  use. 

The  usual  periods  of  hot  weather  during  the  fruiting  season  check 
development  and  cause  shrivelling  of  the  grain  and  consequently  low 
yields  and  poor  quality. 

Profitable  yields  of  oats  and  barley  can  be  secured  in  northern 
Indiana,  with  fertile  soil,  good  cultural  methods  and  early  seeding. 
On  the  loose,  black  *soils  in  this  portion  of  the  State,  oats  will  usually 
do  better  than  winter  wheat. 

Spring  wheat  can  be  profitably  raised  only  in  unusually  cool 
seasons. 

Spring  rye,  emmer  and  speltz  are  poorly  adapted  even  to  northern 
Indiana  conditions  and  are  not  profitable  as  compared  with  oats,  barley 
or  the  winter  grains. 

Special  attention  is  called  to  the  importance  of  treating  seed  oats 
for  smut.  This  disease  causes  an  average  loss  of  at  least  10  per  cent, 
of  the  oats  crop  of  Indiana.  It  may  easily  be  prevented  by  seed  treat- 
ment. (see  pages  8,  9 and  10). 


SPRING  SMALL  GRAINS  IN  INDIANA 


A.  T.  Wiancko  C.  O.  Cromer 


SUMMARY 

The  spring  small  grains  discussed  in  this  bulletin,  oats,  barley,  spring 
wheat,  spring  rye  and  emmer,  are  all  cool  weather  crops  and  the  climate 
of  Indiana,  for  the  most  part,  is  too  warm  for  their  proper  development. 

The  production  of  spring  small  grains  cannot  be  recommended  under 
normal  seasonal  conditions,  except  in  the  northern  portion  of  the  State, 
where  the  average  temperature  during  their  growing  season  is  several 
degrees  cooler  than  in  southern  Indiana. 

Their  profitable  production,  even  in  northern  Indiana,  is  conditioned 
upon  early  seeding,  good  soil  and  cultural  conditions  and  the  absence  of 
hot  weather. 

The  careful  selection  of  varieties  and  proper  grading  of  the  seed  will 
aid  materially  in  increasing  the  yields. 

There  is  no  important  advantage  in  the  use  of  imported  seed. 

Oats  is  the  leading  spring  small  grain  crop  in  Indiana,  comprising 
about  99  per  cent,  of  the  total  acreage  devoted  to  such  crops. 

The  medium  maturing  varieties  of  oats  have  been  the  best  yielders  on 
the  Station  farm,  and  among  these  the  Great  Dakota,  Big  Four,  Silver 
Mine,  White  Bedford  and  Schance  have  been  leaders.  Among  early 
maturing  varieties,  Daubeney  and  Sixty  Day  have  been  the  leaders. 

Loose  smut  is  a troublesome  disease  of  oats  in  Indiana.  Treating 
the  seed  with  formaldehyde  will  practically  eliminate  this  disease  and 
materially  increase  the  yields. 

Barley  stands  next  to  oats  in  importance  among  spring  small  grains 
in  Indiana  and  on  mellow  soils  in  northern  Indiana,  the  proportion  of  this 
crop  might  be  profitably  increased.  Silver  King,  Canadian  No.  21  and 
Hannchen  have  been  the  most  profitable  varieties  on  the  Station  farm. 
Among  early  varieties,  the  Success  Beardless  is  best. 

On  the  average,  the  conditions  in  Indiana  are  not  favorable  to  spring 
wheat  as  compared  with  either  oats,  barley,  winter  wheat  or  winter  rye. 
Marquis  and  Regenerated  Red  Fife  are  the  most  promising  varieties. 

Emmer  and  spring  rye  are  of  little  importance  in  Indiana. 

The  comparative  average  yields  of  spring  small  grains  on  the  Station 
farm  during  the  last  nine  years  have  been:  oats,  52.6  bushels;  barley, 
28.7  bushels;  spring  wheat,  13.7  bushels  where  under  the  same  conditions 
winter  wheat  yielded  29.2  bushels  and  winter  rye,  38.7  bushels. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  area  devoted  to  spring  small  grains  in  Indiana  amounts  to  about 
1,730,000  acres  annually,  or  about  20  per  cent,  of  the  total  acreage  of 
grain  crops.  This  acreage  is  of  sufficient  importance  to  warrant  a careful 
study  of  the  subject,  including  the  different  kinds  of  spring  small  grains, 
their  adaptation  to  Indiana  conditions,  the  most  suitable  varieties  and  the 
best  cultural  methods  in  their  production. 

The  principal  kinds  of  spring  small  grains  grown  in  Indiana  are 
oats,  barley  and  spring  wheat.  Of  these,  oats  constitutes  about  99  per 
cent.,  barley  about  0.8  per  cent,  and  spring  wheat  less  than  0.2 


4 


per  cent.  The  areas  devoted  to  emmer  and  spring  rye  are  prac- 
tically negligible.  For  the  io-year  period,  1908-1917,  the  average  yields 
of  oats  and  barley  were  31.8  bushels  per  acre  and  26.5  bushels  respective- 
ly. There  is  no  record  of  the  average  yield  of  spring  wheat  but  it  has 
been  somewhere  below  the  average  yield  of  winter  wheat.  During  the 
same  period  the  average  farm  price  of  oats  was  42  cents,  barley  68  cents 
and  wheat  $1.14  per  bushel.  A little  calculation  will  show  that  on  the 
average,  the  profits  derived  from  these  crops  have  been  small  and  that 
something  needs  to  be  done  if  they  are  to  retain  an  important  place  in  In- 
diana agriculture.  On  some  farms,  oats  and  even  barley  and  spring  wheat 
are  profitable  crops  but  on  the  majority  of  farms  they  are  grown  at  a loss. 

An  important  reason  why  these  crops  do  not  do  better  in  Indiana  is 
that  the  climatic  conditions  are  not  favorable  to  their  production.  The 
temperature  during  the  growing  season,  and  especially  during  the  fruiting 
period,  is  too  high  for  their  proper  development.  They  are  all  cool 
weather  crops  and  sufifer  severely  when  the  temperature  gets  up  above  80 
degrees,  as  is  often  the  case  during  their  growing  season  in  this  part  of 
the  country.  This  disadvantage  must  be  reckoned  with  from  the  begin- 
ning, and  Indiana  farmers  never  will  be  able  to  compete  on  an  equal  basis 
with  farmers  in  the  states  further  north  in  the  production  of  spring  small 
grains.  Within  the  State,  the  farmers  of  northern  Indiana  have  a con- 
siderable advantage  over  the  farmers  in  southern  Indiana  because  of 
climatic  differences.  The  average  June-July  temperature  for  the  last  14 
years  has  been  71  degrees  Fahrenheit  in  northern  Indiana  and  75  degrees 
in  southern  Indiana.  This  temperature  difference  is  sufficient  to  seriously 
discourage  spring  small  grain  production  in  the  southern  part  of  the  State 
where  hot  weather  nearly  always  cuts  both  yield  and  quality.  As  a mat- 
ter of  fact,  northern  Indiana  grows  over  85  per  cent,  of  the  spring 
small  grains  produced  in  the  State. 

In  certain  sections  of  northern  Indiana,  notably  the  prairies  and  the 
Kankakee  marsh  area,  the  soil  conditions  are  more  favorable  to  spring 
grains  than  they  are  to  the  winter  grains,  which  further  accounts  for  the 
preponderance  of  spring  grains  in  the  northern  part  of  the  State.  These 
conditions,  however,  are  changing  through  better  drainage,  and  winter 
grains  are  steadily  pushing  further  north. 

For  those  who  may  be  in  doubt  as  to  whether  they  should  raise  spring 
or  winter  small  grains,  it  will  be  interesting  to  examine  a comparative 
statement  of  average  returns  based  on  average  yields  and  average  farm 
prices.  Taking  the  state  averages  for  the  last  nine  years,  1910  to  1918 
inclusive,  the  gross  returns  per  acre  for  the  grain  alone  have  been 
$14.96  for  oats,  $19.52  for  barley,  $20.19  for  winter  wheat  and  $14.74  for 
winter  rye.  The  average  yields  per  acre  have  been:  oats,  34  bushels; 
barley,  27.5  bushels;  winter  wheat,  15.9  bushels;  winter  rye,  15.2  bushels. 
The  average  farm  prices  per  bushel  have  been:  oats,  44  cents;  barley, 
7 1 cents;  winter  wheat,  $1.27;  winter  rye,  97  cents. 

To  show  what  may  be  done  on  fairly  well  managed  soil  and  how  the 
several  small  grains  compare  under  like  conditions  in  this  part  of  the 
State,  attention  may  be  called  to  the  results  on  the  Experiment  Station 
fields  at  LaFayette  reported  in  Table  V of  this  bulletin.  As  shown,  the 
average  yields  per  acre  for  the  several  crops  during  the  last  nine  years 


5 


have  been  as  follows:  oats,  52.6  bushels;  barley,  28.7  bushels;  spring 
wheat,  13.7  bushels;  winter  wheat,  29.2  bushels,  and  winter  rye,  38.7 
bushels.  Based  on  the  average  farm  prices  for  the  State  during  the  same 
period,  the  gross  returns  per  acre  for  the  grain  alone  have  been  as  fol- 
lows: oats,  $23.14;  barley,  $20.38;  spring  wheat,  $17.26;  winter  wheat, 
$37.08 ; winter  rye,  $37.54. 

The  conditions  on  the  Station  fields  are  not  any  better  than  they  may 
be  made  on  the  majority  of  farms  in  the  northern  half  of  the  State  at 
least.  Modern  cultural  methods  have  been  practiced.  Fair  amounts  of 
manure  have  been  applied  and  some  acid  phosphate  has  been  used.  The 
most  common  crop  rotation  has  been  corn,  spring  small  grains,  winter 
small  grains  and  clover  or  mixed  clover  and  timothy. 

INCREASING  THE  YIELDS  PER  ACRE 

In  order  to  realize  a profit  from  raising  spring  small  grains,  the  yields 
per  acre  must  be  increased.  Probably  the  first  requisite  is  better  soil  con- 
ditions. If  the  ground  is  naturally  wet  or  heavy,  it  should  be  more 
thoroughly  drained.  A good  system  of  tile  drainage  will  soon  pay  for 
itself  and  will  make  all  other  treatments  more  effective.  A good  crop 
rotation  should  be  adopted  in  which  clover  or  some  other  legume  appears 
at  least  once  every  three  years.  The  legume  will  provide  nitrogen  and 
make  more  mineral  plant  food  available  for  the  other  crops  and  will  im- 
prove the  physical  condition  of  the  soil.  To  get  a good  growth  of 
legumes,  the  soil  may  need  to  be  limed.  With  a good  rotation  and  the 
use  of  a fair  proportion  of  stable  manure,  some  available  phosphate  is  the 
only  fertilizer  that  will  need  to  be  added  for  all  ordinary  soils.  On  run 
down  soils,  it  may  be  necessary  to  buy  some  nitrogen  and  potash  until 
the  legume  is  well  established.  Practically  all  Indiana  soils  are  lacking 
in  phosphorus  and  this  substance  will  need  to  be  regularly  purchased. 
At  least  100  pounds  per  acre  per  year  of  a high  grade  acid  phosphate  or 
its  equivalent  in  other  available  phosphates  should  be  used.  Enough 
phosphate  for  the  whole  rotation  can  be  applied  to  one  or  two  of  the  grain 
crops,  according  to  convenience. 

Better  cultural  methods  must  be  practiced.  Disking  oats  or  other 
small  grain  in  corn-stalk  ground  is  not  a good  method  of  seeding  but 
where  this  is  necessary,  it  should  be  more  carefully  done  so  as  to  secure 
a fine,  even  seed  bed.  Deep  disking  is  not  so  desirable  as  a thorough 
pulverization  of  the  surface.  Fall  plowing  in  the  northern  part  of  the 
State  will  pay  well  wherever  this  can  be  done.  Fall  plowed  land  can  be 
worked  earlier  in  the  spring  than  stalk  land.  Early  seeding  is  a very 
important  factor  in  the  successful  production  of  spring  small  grains  in 
Indiana.  A few  days  delay  in  seeding  may  seriously  reduce  the  yield. 
Observations  on  interrupted  seedings  on  the  Station  grounds  have  sub- 
stantiated this  statement  many  times.  Drilling  the  seed  is  always  better 
than  broadcasting,  because  it  insures  more  even  covering  and  a more 
even  distribution  of  the  seed. 

Finally,  it  is  important  to  use  good  seed  and  good  varieties.  The 
results  of  the  variety  tests  reported  in  this  bulletin  will  show  which 
varieties  are  best  suited  to  Indiana  conditions.  Thorough  cleaning  and 
grading  of  the  seed  will  insure  a better  stand  and  add  several  bushels  to 


6 


the  yield.  A good  fanning  mill  or  other  seed  grader  should  be  a part  of 
every  small  grain  grower’s  equipment.  The  results  of  experiments  con- 
ducted for  several  years  at  the  Ohio,  Kansas,  Minnesota  and  Canadian  ex- 
periment stations  with  oats  have  shown  an  average  increase- of  nine  bush- 
els per  acre  from  the  use  of  large,  heavy  seed  as  compared  with  small  and 
light  seed.  Good  seed  must  be  free  of  plant  diseases.  Most  of  these  are 
readily  preventable  by  proper  seed  treatment. 

OATS 

Time  oe  Seeding  and  Soig  Preparation. — Oats  should  be  sown  as 
early  in  the  spring  as  it  is  possible  to  work  the  ground  without  injury,  to 
obtain  the  largest  yields  of  grain  of  the  best  quality.  Where  plowing 
ground  for  oats  is  practiced,  this  should  be  done  in  the  fall.  Fall  plowed 
land  can  be  worked  earlier  in  the  spring  than  unplowed  land  and  has  the 
advantage  of  permitting  earlier  seeding.  Spring  plowing  is  not  generally 
practiced  on  account  of  the  necessary  delay  in  seeding.  For  corn  ground, 
disking  is  usually  the  most  practical  method  of  preparing  the  seed  bed  for 
oats  and  other  spring  grains  requiring  early  seeding.  The  disking  and 
harrowing  should  be  thorough  but  not  deep.  Fineness  and  uniformity 
are  important  to  insure  an  even  stand. 

Method  and  Rate  oe  Seeding. — As  to  the  most  profitable  manner 
of  seeding,  it  may  be  said  that  a great  deal  depends  upon  the  season. 
Broadcasting  does  not  insure  the  most  uniform  distribution  of  seed  and 
covering  with  a smoothing  harrow  does  not  plant  all  kernels  at  the 
proper  depth.  When  the  planting  season  is  dry,  this  ununiformity  in 
depth  of  planting  is  objectionable.  Drilling  with  a seed  drill  insures 
uniform  distribution  and  depth  of  planting.  It  pays  to  do  the  work  well 
under  all  climatic  conditions.  The  optimum  rate  of  seeding  will  depend 
upon  the  season,  the  size  of  the  berry  and  the  fertility  of  the  soil.  In 
1909,  the  Station  began  an  experiment  which  was  continued  over  a period 
of  eight  years  to  determine  what  rate  of  seeding  should  be  recommended 
to  produce  the  most  profitable  yields.  In  this  period,  practically  all  kinds 
of  growing  seasons  have  occurred.  In  1913,  the  experiment  was  located 
on  a new  farm  and  in  places  the  ground  was  so  weedy  that  the  results 
could  not  be  considered  trustworthy  and  were  discarded.  Two  varieties 
were  used  in  this  experiment — Swedish  Select,  a large  kerneled  oat,  and 
Silvermine,  having  a medium  sized  kernel. 


7 


Table  I. — Results  of  Experiments  in  Different  Rates  of  Seeding  Oats 


Variety 

Tear 

Rates  of  seeding  and  yields  in  bushels  per 

acre 

6 pecks 

8 pecks 

10  pecks 

12  pecks 

16  pecks 

20  pecks 

Silvermine 

1909 

60 .3 1 

65.1 

64.1 

64.7 

51.0 

59.7 

1910 

60.4 

61.7 

60.5 

57.4 

58.3 

62.6 

1911 

34.0 

31.4 

32.7 

36.5 

32.6 

32.0 

1912 

54.6 

65.1 

66.8 

77.2 

67.9 

65.8 

1914 

12.7 

11.7 

11.5 

11.2 

10.2 

7.1 

1915 

66.8 

70.7 

72.8 

71.4 

76.0 

71.0 

1916 

51.4 

57.2 

57.2 

58.5 

56.2 

55.2 

Average 

48.6 1 

51.8 

52.2 

53.8 

50.3 

50.5 

Swedish  Select 

1909 

52.2 1 

56.0 

56.5 

48.2 

54.6 

54.1 

1910 

54.5 

59.1 

58.1 

54.7 

55.9 

58.9 

1911 

29.7 

31.3 

30.5 

33.7 

29.0 

28.9 

1912 

53.4 

58.5 

66.4 

67.0 

64.1 

63.4 

1914 

9.3 

10.8 

9.5 

9.5 

8.3 

8.8 

1915 

70.0 

74.7 

67.5 

75.2 

73.0 

82.8 

1916 

48.0 

57.3 

57.3 

57.7 

53.7 

55.0 

Average 

45.3 

49.7 

49.4 

49.4 

48.4 

50.3 

General  average  of  both 
varieties 

46.9 

50.7 

50.7 

51.6 

49.3 

50.4 

Average  net  yield  after 
deducting  the  seed 

45.4 

48.7 

48.2 

48.6 

45.3 

45.4 

1 Calculated  yield 


It  may  be  observed  in  Table  I that  12  pecks  per  acre  of  Silvermine 
gave  the  largest  average  yield  and  20  pecks  of  Swedish  Select  pro- 
duced best.  In  the  case  of  the  Silvermine  variety,  the  apparently  ab- 
normally high  yield  of  the  12-peck  rate  of  seeding  in  1912  is  the  cause  of 
this  rate  of  seeding  giving  the  highest  average  yield ; barring  this,  the 
10-peck  rate  of  seeding  has  been  most  profitable.  In  the  case  of  the 
Swedish  Select  variety,  the  extra  seed  above  eight  pecks  per  acre  did  not 
pay.  The  general  average  of  the  two  varieties  indicates  that  drilling 
eight  to  12  pecks  of  clean  seed  per  acre  will  produce  the  most  profitable 
yields. 

Ohio  results1  closely  agree  with  the  results  obtained  at  the  Indiana 
Station.  Iowa  results2  seem  to  indicate  that  a four-bushel  rate  of  seeding 
is  most  productive  for  the  Kherson  variety,  while  not  over  three  bushels 
per  acre  of  Silvermine  and  other  similar  varieties  should  be  sown  for 
maximum  returns  in  that  state.  The  richer  the  soil,  the  more  favorable 
the  season  and  the  larger  the  type  of  kernel,  the  larger  should  be  the  rate 
of  seeding  oats.  In  sowing  a variety  like  the  Sixty  Day  or  Kherson,  a 
smaller  quantity  of  seed  will  give  as  good  a stand  as  a larger  quantity  of 
a larger  kerneled  variety  but  due  to  the  shorter  growth,  more  scant  foli- 
age and  earlier  maturity  of  the  small  kerneled  varieties,  it  may  be  more 
profitable  to  seed  at  a heavier  rate  than  one  would  sow  such  varieties 
as  the  Swedish  Select. 


1 Ohio  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  Bulletin  No.  257 

2 Iowa  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  Bulletin  No.  175 


8 


Grading  the  Seed. — A fanning  mill  should  be  considered  a part  of 
the  equipment  of  a small  grain  grower.  The  use  of  the  fanning  mill 
removes  the  dirt,  sticks,  weed  seeds,  light  kernels  and  any  other  foreign 
matter  that  would  hinder  the  uniform  distribution  of  the  seed  in  sowing 
and  the  securing  of  a perfect  stand.  Experiments  by  this  and  other  sta- 
tions show  that  it  pays  to  run  the  oats  through  a good  fanning  mill  at 
least  once,  in  order  to  remove  dirt,  straw,  and  light  as  well  as  diseased 
and  unfilled  grains. 

Seed  Diseases. — Several  diseases  are  common  to  oats  in  Indiana, 
viz.,  leaf  rust,  stem  rust,  blight  and  smut.  Perhaps  oats  smut  is  the  dis- 
ease most  detrimental  to  large  yields,  but  is  at  the  same  time,  the  most 
easily  controlled  of  any  of  the  diseases  mentioned.  It  has  been  estimated 
that  as  much  as  five  per  cent,  to  io  per  cent,  of  the  oats  crop  is  destroyed 
by  smut  each  year.  In  some  cases,  the  proportion  of  infected  plants 
reaches  25  per  cent,  of  the  crop.  The  formalin  treatment  not  only  kills 
the  smut  spores  and  increases  the  yield,  but  it  also  improves  the  quality 
of  the  grain  and  the  straw  as  well.  This  treatment  may  be  of  benefit  in 
killing  other  disease  spores  borne  by  the  kernels,  which  tend  to  reduce 
the  yield. 

Directions  for  Treating  Seed. — Owing  to  the  fact  that  the  smut 
germs  are  present  only  on  the  surface  of  the  kernels,  it  is  an  easy  task  to 


Fig.  2.  The  “wet  method”  of  applying  the  formaldehyde  treatment  to  seed  oats  to 
prevent  smut,  using  a watering  can 


destroy  them  without  impairing  the  vitality  of  the  oats.  Until  recently, 
the  method  in  general  use  consisted  in  treating  the  seed  with  a compara- 
tively weak  solution  of  formaldehyde.  A new  method,  requiring  a very 
strong  solution  of  formaldehyde,  has  been  carefully  tested  out  and  is 
being  recommended  by  several  experiment  stations.  The  old  method 


9 


may  well  be  called  the  wet  method,  and  the  new,  the  dry  method,  con- 
sidering the  amount  of  water  used  in  each.  The  main  advantage  of  the 
dry  method  is  that  the  treated  seed  remains  practically  dry  and  can  be 
sown  immediately  after  the  treatment.  The  tests  have  also  shown  that 
the  grain  treated  by  the  dry  method  is  not  as  liable  to  injury  as  it  is 
when  treated  by  the  wet  method. 

The:  Wet  MTthod. — Prepare  a solution  by  mixing  one  pint  of  for- 
maldehyde in  40  gallons  of  water.  One  gallon  of  this  solution  will  treat 
about  one  and  one-half  bushels  of  oats.  Spread  the  seed  on  a tight  board 
or  cement  floor,  on  a canvas  or  in  a wagon  box,  and  sprinkle  with  the 
prepared  solution.  Then  shovel  the  grain  over  to  distribute  the  moisture. 
Repeat  this  a number  of  times  until  all  grain  is  thoroughly  moist,  but  not 
wet,  and  then  shovel  into  a pile.  Cover  the  pile  with  disinfected  sacks, 
canvas,  old  rugs  or  horse  blankets,  for  at  least  two  hours.  The  treated 
grain  may  safely  be  left  covered,  however,  from  morning  until  night  or 
through  the  night  if  treated  in  the  evening.  The  grain  is  usually  dry 
enough  to  sow  about  12  to  24  hours  after  the  treatment.  To  allow  for 
its  swollen  condition  at  this  time,  the  seeding  machine  should  be  set  to 
sow  about  one-fifth  more  per  acre  than  when  perfectly  dry  grain  is  used. 


Fig.  3.  The  “dry  method”  of  applying  the  formaldehyde  treatment  to  seed  oats  to 
prevent  smut,  using  an  atomizer-sprayer 


10 


If  the  treated  grain  is  to  be  kept  longer  than  24  hours  before  sowing,  it 
must  be  spread  out  and  occasionally  raked  or  shoveled  over  to  allow  it  to 
dry.  It  should  never  be  sacked  or  left  in  a deep  pile  in  damp  condition. 

The  Dry  Method. — Mix  one  pint  of  formaldehyde  with  one  pint  of 
water  and  pour  the  solution  into  a one-quart  hand  sprayer.  A good  hand 
atomizer- sprayer,  equipped  with  an  ordinary  quart  Mason  jar  to  hold  the 
solution,  can  be  purchased  for  about  50  cents  to  75  cents.  Spray  the  solu- 
tion on  the  grain,  as  it  is  being  shoveled  over,  taking  care  that  it  is  well 
distributed.  One  quart  of  the  solution  will  treat  50  bushels  of  oats.  When 
all  grain  is  treated,  shovel  it  into  a pile  and  cover  for  five  hours  as  directed 
under  the  wet  method.  The  grain  may  be  sown  immediately  after  the 
treatment  or  allowed  to  aerate  thoroughly  and  stored  until  needed. 

Precautions  Regarding  Formaldehyde  Treatment. — Care  should 
be  taken  to  use  only  formaldehyde  of  proper  strength,  as  otherwise  the 
results  may  be  disappointing.  The  treating  solution  should  not  be  made 
stronger  or  weaker  than  recommended.  If  less  than  50  bushels  of  oats 
^re  to  be  treated,  the  proper  amount  of  solution  to  be  used  should  be 
calculated  on  the  basis  of  three  quarts  to  a gallon  per  bushel  in  the  wet 
method,  and  two-thirds  of  an  ounce  per  bushel  in  the  dry  method.  When 
treating  by  the  dry  method  the  sprayer  should  be  held  close  to  the  grain 
to  prevent  waste  of  the  mist.  The  grain  should  be  treated  in  a well  ven- 
tilated place,  especially  if  using  the  dry  method,  to  avoid  the  irritating  ef- 
fect of  the  formaldehyde  gas.  Care  should  be  taken  to  avoid  reinfection. 
The  bin,  sacks,  the  seed  drill,  or  any  other  container  that  held  untreated 
oats,  previous  to  placing  treated  seed  in  it  should  be  sprayed  with  for- 
maldehyde solution. 

The  expense  connected  with  the  seed  treatment  is  practically 
negligible.  The  cost  of  formaldehyde  is  less  than  one  cent  per  bushel,  or 


Fig.  4.  Result  of  formaldehyde  treatment  for  oats  smut.  The  bundle  at  right  is  the 
produce  of  treated  seed  and  contains  no  smut.  The  bundle  at  left  shows  the  proportion  of 
sound  oats  and  the  bundle  in  the  middle,  the  smutted  oats  produced  from  a lot  of  the  same 
seed  without  the  formaldehyde  treatment.  The  untreated  seed  produced  31  per  cent,  of 
smutted  heads 


II 


about  two  cents  an  acre,  and  the  labor  requires  comparatively  little  time. 
Two  men  can  easily  treat  50  bushels  in  less  than  an  hour.  To  treat  all 
seed  oats  in  Indiana  would  cost  about  $34,000.00.  This  investment  would 
save  annually  about  7,700,000  bushels  of  grain  worth,  at  50  cents  a bushel, 
$3,75o,ooc),  or  over  ten  times  the  cost  of  seed  treatment. 

Varieties. — Varieties  of  grain  vary  in  their  ability  to  produce  under 
a given  set  of  conditions.  The  qualities  that  go  to  make  up  a good  variety 
of  oats  for  Indiana  are  high  yield,  stiff  straw,  medium  early  maturity,  and 
low  per  cent,  of  hull.  Not  all  of  these  qualities  are  correlated  with  yield, 
so  that  yield  is  usually  the  most  important  factor  in  determining  the  im- 
portance of  any  variety.  The  question  of  securing  the  best  variety  can- 
not be  decided  until  the  varieties  in  question  have  been  put  through  a test 
covering  several  years.  The  Soils  and  Crops  Department  has  been  con- 
ducting such  tests  for  a number  of  years.  A summary  of  the  average 
yields  of  all  the  varieties  tested  at  the  Experiment  Station  since  1904, 
grouped  according  to  the  years  tested,  appears  in  Table  II.  Swedish 
Select  has  been  used  as  the  check  throughout  the  test.  It  is  a coarse, 
moderately  stiff-strawed  variety  with  an  open  panicle,  and  is  medium  to 
moderately  late  in  maturity. 


\ 


12 


Table:  II. — Summary  of  Oats  Variety  Tests,  1904-1918 


Varieties  grouped  by 
years  in  test 

Color 

of 

grain 

Yields  in  bushels  per  acre 

1904 

1905 

1906 

1907 

1908 

1909 

Aver- 

age 

1904-1907 

Swedish  Select 

white 

66.2 

64.0 

59.1 

23.8 

53.3 

Black  Diamond 

black 

58.4 

69.0 

67.9 

24.6 

55.0 

Early  Illinois 

white 

67.8 

65.0 

56.6 

22.8 

53.0 

Northern  White  Star 

white 

59.1 

71.5 

69.5 

24.1 

56.0 

Prosperity 

white 

36.8 

72.5 

39.4 

17.7 

41.6 

1904-1908 

Swedish  Select 

white 

66.2 

64.0 

59.1 

23.8 

35.2 

49.7 

American  Banner 

white 

59.3 

50.4 

74.9 

24.0 

33.0 

48.3 

Big  Pour 

white 

67.5 

62.5 

74.8 

23.6 

39.0 

53.5 

Black  Gotham 

black 

54.4 

64.0 

71.7 

21.3 

38.5 

50.0 

Centennial 

white 

55.3 

71.4 

62.5 

20.3 

35.5 

49.0 

Clydesdale 

white 

59.1 

65.0 

66.9 

18.4 

35.3 

48.9 

Colonel 

white 

67.5 

52.0 

64.7 

22.8 

35.6 

48.5 

Early  Champion 

white 

59.4 

68.0 

37.1 

19.5 

28.4 

42.5 

Great  Dakota 

white 

59.3 

76.5 

74.2 

29.4 

35.7 

55.0 

Green  Mountain 

white 

62.2 

70.0 

63.4 

26.0 

38.0 

51.9 

Improved  American 

white 

40.9 

66.5 

67.2 

28.5 

35.9 

47.8 

Kansas  Hybrid 

white 

58.9 

66.0 

61.7 

24.0 

42.4 

50.6 

Kherson 

yellow 

38.7 

68.0 

50.6 

17.2 

33.8 

41.7 

Lincoln 

white 

64.3 

66.0 

69.4 

19.6 

40.3 

51.9 

Michigan  Wonder 

white 

68.7 

53.0 

60.2 

18.7 

41.0 

48.3 

Mortgage  Lifter 

white 

59.3 

63.0 

66.9 

25.9 

37.5 

50.5 

Purdue  Black 

black 

58.1 

59.1 

63.5 

24.4 

42.8 

49.6 

Scotch  Champion 

white 

42.5 

43.0 

53.1 

17.2 

34.3 

38.0  • 

Scottish  Chief 

white 

59.3 

62.0 

64.2 

19.4 

42.4 

49.5 

Seizure 

white 

49.4 

65.0 

62.6 

16.9 

32.9 

45.4 

Silver  Mine 

white 

69.1 

67.0 

68.8 

22.2 

33.9 

52.2 

Sixty  Day 

yellow 

36.5 

85.9 

41.3 

23.2 

42.3 

45.8 

Tyration 

white 

63.1 

62.5 

67.2 

22.0 

33.2 

49.6 

White  Belgian 

white 

66.2 

63.0 

59.7 

15.3 

35.5 

47.9 

1904-1909 

Swedish  Select 

white 

66.2 

64.0 

59.1 

23.8 

35.2 

58.8 

51.2 

Czar  of  Russia 

white 

66.8 

69.0 

65.8 

27.2 

33.9 

56.2 

53.1 

Gold  Mine 

white 

59.3 

68.5 

67.9 

26.0 

40.9 

50.4 

52.2 

Great  American 

white 

46.5 

59.0 

62.7 

16.41 

41.1 

37.7 

43.9 

1905-1909 

Swedish  Select 

white 

64.0 

59.1 

23.8 

35.2 

58.8 

48.2 

Black  Prolific 

black 

51.0 

56.7 

20.8 

35.0 

47.2 

42.1 

Black  Tartarian 

black 

66.0 

67.6 

18.5 

41.1 

58.0 

50.2 

Fourth  of  July 

white 

68.0 

40.4 

20.5 

34.6 

53.1 

43.3 

Improved  White 

Russian 

white 

57.0 

53.6 

18.6 

54.7 

56.4 

48.1 

National 

white 

58.0 

65.3 

22.0 

41.2 

58.3 

49.0 

Texas  Red 

reddish 

64.0 

64.8 

26.6 

39.5 

48.9 

48.8 

Twentieth  Century 

white 

63.0 

54.7 

19.9 

32.9 1 

55.0 1 

45.1 

White  Mohegan 

white 

55.0 

63.5 

19.1 

35.3 

52.9 

45.2 

White  Superior 

Scotch 

white 

53.0 

43.9 

21.1 

36.4 

54.2 

41.7 

1 Calculated  yield 


13 


Table:  II. — Summary  of  Oats  Variety  Tests,  1904-1918  (continued) 


Varieties  grouped  by 
years  in  test 

Color 

of 

grain 

Yields  in  bushels  per  acre 

1906 

1907 

1908 

1909 

1910 

1911 

1912 

Aver- 

age 

1906-1910 

Swedish  Select 

white 

59.1 

23.8 

35.2 

58.8 

39.7 

43.3 

Golden  Fleece 

white 

65.2 

21.0 

45.0 

57.8 

41.9 

46.2 

National 

white 

65.3 

22.0 

41.2 

58.3 

37.2 

44.8 

University  No.  6 

white 

59.21 

25.3 

33.9 

55.2 

44.4 

43.6 

Welcome 

white 

68.4 

28.9 

39.7 

51.4 

41.2 

45.9 

1908-1912 

Swedish  Select 

white 

35.2 

58.8 

39.7 

26.2 

70.5 

46.1 

Daubeny 

white 

35.6 

75.7 

30.7 

25.4 

67.9 

47.1 

Emperor  William 

white 

38.7 

56.0 

48.9 

37.1 

67.7 

49.7 

Great  Dakota 

white 

35.7 

56.9 

42.2 

27.1 

75.9 

47.6 

Regenerated  Swedish 

Select 

white 

36.5 

57.0 

39.5 

27.6 

75.3 

47.2 

Silver  Mine 

white 

33.9 

68.0 

34.3 

25.1 

82.9 

48.8 

Sparrowbill 

white 

25.3 

58.8 

33.7 

18.2 

73.9 

42.0 

White  Bedford 

white 

31.3 

66.3 

46.6 

25.7 

89.6 

51.9 

White  Belyak 

white 

29.2 

58.6 

36.9 

23.7 

87.6 

47.2 

White  Plume 

white 

32.2 

59.0 

24.4 

24.5 

98.4 

47.7 

1909 

1910 

1911 

1912 

1914 

1916 

1909-1914 

Swedish  Select 

white 

58.8 

39.7 

26.2 

70.5 

15.6 

42.2 

Black  Egyptian 

black 

57.8 

33.5 

31.3 

78.7 

13.4 

42.9 

Garton  No.  364 

white 

43.5 

27.6 

25.7 

72.6 

16.9 

37.3 

Garton  No.  396 

black 

53.7 

29.7 

30.8 

74.9 

16.9 

41.2 

Garton  No.  436 

white 

53.2 

40.2 

26.1 

70.3 

12.9 

40.5 

Garton  No.  572 

white 

51.6 

46.9 

26.0 

71.8 

18.9 

43.0 

Garton  No.  691 

black 

47.6 

27.3 

29.2 

63.6 

17.6 

37.1 

Great  Northern 

white 

50.6 

39.5 

24.8 

71.3 

16.2 

40.5 

New  Sensation 

white 

59.3 

39.8 

25.2 

68.2 

12.7 

41.0 

Peerless 

white 

58.2 

36.8 

26.5 

69.3 

12.5 

40.7 

Schance 

white 

63.1 

46.3 

23.5 

95.9 

16.4 

49.0 

White  Bonanza 

white 

53.6 

35.6 

24.9 

90.0 

11.7 

43.1 

White  Tartar  King 

white 

51.5 

28.9 

22.9 

93.7 

16.5 

42.7 

1910-1916 

Swedish  Select 

white 

39.7 

26.2 

70.5 

15.6 

62.4 

42.9 

Canadian  Cluster 

white 

27.1 

26.0 

65.4 

17.1 

50.6 

37.2 

Kirsche’s  Original 

white 

35.5 

20.5 

74.8 

14.5 

55.2 

40.1 

President 

white 

44.8 

23.0 

68.8 

13.8 

56.4 

41.3 

Roosevelt 

white 

36.4 

25.2 

71.7 

8.8 

56.4 

39.7 

Senator 

white 

17.3 

20.4 

77.2 

11.8 

52.1 

35.8 

University  No.  26 

white 

39.1 

28.8 

84.8 

14.0 

58.1 

44.9 

Victor 

black 

32.0 

29.9 

70.7 

13.4 

40.8 

37.4 

1 Calculated  yield 


14 


Table:  II. — Summary  of  Oats  Variety  Tests,  1904-1918  (continued) 


Varieties  grouped  by 
years  in  test 

Color 

of 

grain 

Yields  in  bus 

;hels  per  acre 

1911 

1912 

1914 

1916 

1917 

1918 

Aver- 

age 

1911-1917 

' 

Swedish  Select 

white 

26.2 

70.5 

15.6 

62.4 

82.8 

51.5 

Borstlas  Probsteier 

yellow 

16.7 

60.6 

15.9 

47.6 

74.4 

43.0 

Guldrcgns 

yellow 

22.8 

73.3 

17.2 

54.8 

79.8 

49.6 

Hoit  Probsteier 

white 

21.7 

75.0 

17.9 

57.2 

81.8 

50.7 

Hvitling 

white 

23.4 

72.3 

18.3 

49.2 

64.3 

45.5 

Ligowo 

white 

27.3 

75.6 

9.9 

62.1 

77.4 

50.5 

Napoleon 

white 

22.51 

82.6 

12.3 

50.1 

71.0 

47.7 

Seger 

white 

22.3 

84.1 

17.7 

65.7 

84.7 

54.9 

Serial  No.  37 

yellow 

32.3 

77.3 

17.0 

65.4 

99.2 

58.2 

Serial  No.  40 

yellow 

38.0 

72.9 

16.2 

77.9 

87.5 

58.5 

Serial  No.  42 

yellow 

34.7 

70.0 

11.7 

72.2 

100.2 

57.8 

1914-1918 

Swedish  Select 

white 

15.6 

62.4 

82.8 

71.4 

58.0 

Black  Belle  II 

black 

10.8 

38.6 

41.6 

70.9 

40.5 

Black  Great  Mogul 

black 

0.0 

38.3 

53.9 

70,6 

40.1 

Crown 

white 

13.8 

59.8 

81.9 

76.2 

57.9 

Garton  No.  5 

white 

13,6 

42.7 

60.5 

60.2 

44.3 

Mammoth  Cluster 

white 

10.6 

50.2 

56.2 

60.6 

44.4 

Swedish  Tarpaulin 

white 

11.3 

58.3 

80.7 

71.6 

55.5 

Victory 

white 

9.9 

67.0 

89.6 

77.4 

61.0 

1916-1918 

Swedish  Select 

white 

62.4 

82.8 

71.4 

72.2 

Alexander 

white 

54.7 

91.7 

61.0 

69.1 

Alexander  No.  61601 

white 

56.2 

90.9 

64.3 

70.4 

Canadian  Regener- 

ated Swedish 

Select 

white 

53.0 

86.2 

71.9 

70.4 

Canadian  New 

Alberta 

white 

58.1 

84.5 

62.5 

68.4 

Golden  Rust  Proof 

yellow 

63.9 

88.8 

62.7 

71.5 

Iowa  No.  103 

white 

60.8 

72.3 

53.0 

62.0 

Minnesota  No.  281 

white 

52.6 

82.9 

66.1 

67.2 

Minnesota  No.  295 

white 

49.4 

92.0 

60.0 

67.1 

Miracle 

white 

55.0 

78.2 

70.0 

67.7 

Success  No.  05402 

white 

53.7 

89.5 

73.9 

72.4 

White  Banner 

white 

57.1 

89.0 

63.0 

69.7 

Wisconsin  Pedigree 

No.  1 

white 

61.3 

78.5 

81.6 

73.8 

Worthy 

white 

54.3 

82.8 

67.8 

68.3 

1917-1918 

Swedish  Select 

white 

82.8 

71.4 

77.1 

Idaho  White 

white 

88.7 

67.4 

78.0 

O.  A.  C.  No.  72 

white 

86.1 

63.3 

74.7 

Schoenen 

white 

85.8 

73.1 

79.4 

Wisconsin  Pedigree 

No.  5 

white 

80.3 

69.4 

74.8 

1 Calculated  yield 


i5 


Table  II  shows  some  marked  differences  between  varieties  in  yield 
and  earliness. 

Such  varieties  as  Scotch  Champion,  Early  Champion,  Kherson, 
Sixty  Day,  Early  Illinois,  Fourth  of  July,  and  Iowa  No.  103  are  all  early 
varieties  and  generally  fall  below  the  check  variety  in  point  of  yield.  The 
best  yielding  varieties  include  the  Great  Dakota,  Silvermine,  Big  Four, 
Green  Mountain,  Black  Tartarian,  National,  Welcome,  White  Bedford, 
Schance  and  Seger,  the  latter  being  of  Swedish  origin.  The  Great  Da- 
kota, Silvermine,  National  and  Big  Four  mature  about  the  same  time  as 
the  Swedish  Select.  The  Black  Tartarian  and  Welcome  mature  a day 
earlier  than  Swedish  Select,  while  the  White  Bedford,  Schance  and  Se- 
ger mature  from  one  to  three  days  later  than  the  Swedish  Select.  The 
question  of  maturity  is  an  important  one  in  connection  with  the  nature 
of  the  season.  In  a season  of  extreme  drought  and  high  temperature,  a 
late  maturing  variety  is  greatly  reduced  in  yield  and  quality.  In  a season 
favorable  for  oats,  an  early  maturing  variety  produces  very  much  less 
than  those  later  in  maturity,  while  in  a season  both  hot  and  dry,  the 
early  maturing  varieties  show  to  much  better  advantage.  Therefore,  it 
is  advisable  to  select  a variety  that  is  medium  in  maturity  and  will  measure 
up  well  under  average  conditions.  The  southern  part  of  the  State  general- 
ly will  obtain  the  best  results  from  the  earlier  maturing  varieties. 

Imported  Seed. — Questions  frequently  arise  concerning  the  importa- 
tion of  seed  from  other  sections.  Most  experiments  see  n to  indicate  that 
there  is  a slight  increase  in  yield  to  be  gained  by  using  northern  grown 
seed  but  this  is  not  sufficient  to  pay  for  the  extra  trouble  and  cost.  The 
Ohio  Station’s1  results  indicate  that  seed  oats  from  the  north  and  north- 
west may  be  expected  to  yield  about  the  same  as  home  grown  seed  and 
that  imported  varieties  gain  little  by  acclimatization.  The  Illinois  Station2 
says,  “A  six-year  average,  covering  32  tests  with  northern  oats  and  34 
tests  with  home-grown  oats,  shows  that  the  northern-grown  seed  pro- 
duced 3.0  bushels  more  per  acre  than  the  home-grown  seed.  This  differ- 
ence is  scarcely  large  enough  to  justify  the  extra  expense  and  trouble 
of  shipping  in  the  northern  seed  oats.” 

At  the  Indiana  Station,  two  tests  have  been  conducted  to  determine 
the  adaptation  of  imported  seed  as  compared  with  home  grown  seed.  In 
one  experiment,  lasting  seven  years,  a fresh  seed  of  Sixty  Day  oats  was 
secured  each  year  from  Kansas  and  North  Dakota  and  compared  with 
home  grown  seed,  all  having  come  from  one  source  at  the  beginning  of 
the  experiment.  As  the  average  for  the  seven-year  period,  the  Kansas 
grown  seed  produced  51.2  bushels,  the  North  Dakota  seed,  52.4  bushels 
and  the  home  grown  seed  50.2  bushels  per  acre.  In  the  other  experi- 
ment lasting  three  years,  Wisconsin  grown  National  oats  were  imported 
each  year  and  grown  beside  home  grown  National  originally  from  the 
same  source.  The  average  yields  for  the  three  years  were  58.4  bushels  per 
acre  for  the  Wisconsin  grown  seed  and  57.6  bushels  for  the  home  grown 
seed. 

In  the  light  of  the  data  from  Indiana,  Ohio  and  Illinois,  it  would 
seem  that  oats  yields  can  be  maintained  with  the  continuous  use  of  home 


1 Ohio  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  Bulletin  No.  257 

2 Illinois  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  Bulletin  No.  195 


i6 


grown  seed,  especially  where  cleaned  and  graded  seed  is  used  that  has 
been  treated  to  reduce  disease  to  the  minimum.  Too  frequently  a good 
variety  is  discarded  by  the  farmer,  because  he  thinks  it  has  “run  out.” 
Neglected  varieties  will  surely  deteriorate  but  properly  cared  for  varieties 
will  continue  to  give  good  results  indefinitely.  After  a variety  has  once 
proven  its  worth,  continuous  careful  attention  to  seed  selection  will  im- 
prove its  adaptation  to  the  local  conditions  and  there  need  be  no  fear  of 
“running  out.” 

SPRING  BARLEY 

The  same  general  statements  so  far  as  time  of  seeding  and  method 
and  rate  of  seeding  are  concerned,  hold  true  for  spring  barley  as  for  oats. 
Hot  weather  the  latter  part  of  the  growing  season  injures  the  yield  and 
the  quality  of  barley  even  more  than  oats.  For  this  reason,  the  earlier 
the  seeding  the  better  it  is  for  the  crop. 

Earliness  is  a desirable  quality  for  a variety  to  have  in  addition  to 
yielding  power.  These  two  characteristics  will  contribute  a great  deal 
towards  making  barley  culture  profitable. 


17 


Table:  III. — Summary  of  Spring  Barley  Variety  Tests,  1905-1918 


Varieties  grouped  by 
years  in  test 

Yields  of  grain  in  bushels  per  acre 

1905 

1906 

1907 

1908 

1909 

Aver- 

age- 

1905-1909 

Success  Beardless 

20.6 

21.7 

16.2 

21.3 

30.5 

22.1 

Black  Hulless 

16.8 

18.6 

15.0 

14.4 

31.3 

19.2 

Giant  White 

Hulless 

16.4 

18.71 

9.3 

13.2 

35.4 

18.6 

Great  Beardless 

20.6 

23.6 

17.3 

15.7 

32.2 

21.9 

Highland  Chief 

20.0 

20.9 

9.0 

16.3 

37.6 

20.8 

Manshury 

20.4 

30.3 

10.0 

13.4 

47.1 

24.2 

Moravian  or  Hanna 

19.6 

24.8 

8.4 

17.7 

33.1 

20.7 

Silver  Beardless 

17.5 

24.0 

11.8 

14.4 

32.7 

20.1 

Silver  King 

22.3 

33.6 

21.2 

19.0 

46.3 

28.5 

1908 

1909 

1910 

1911 

1912 

1913 

1914 

1908-1914 

Success  Beardless 

21.3 

30.5 

45.7 

20.7 

37.8 

7.3 

6.4 

24.3 

Canadian  No.  21 

18.8 

48.0 

41.8 

19.9 

55.0 

7.1 

5.9 

28.1 

Oderbrucker 

21.1 

41.3 

42.0 

18.6 

37.5 

9.0 

3.2 

24.7 

University  No.  105 

19.7 

43.7 

43.2 

16.2 

34.4 

5.2 

5.2 

23.9 

No.  986 

8.81 

31.3 

32.3 

0.1 

4.6 

2.7 

4.9 

12.1 

1911 

1912 

1913 

1914 

1915 

1916 

1917 

1911-1917 

Success  Beardless 

20.9 

37.8 

7.3 

6.4 

20.5 

28.7 

48.8 

24.3 

Chevalier 

9.1 

42.0 

5.4 

3.0 

14.3 

26.0 

37.3 

19.6 

Hannchen 

17.8 

55.5 

8.7 

8.1 

17.9 

35.2 

50.5 

27.7 

Primus 

3.8 

23.8 1 

4.61 

0.0 

12.8 

23.4 

45.7 

16.3 

Princess 

4.9 

56.1 

3.7 

6.3 

24.8 

33.6 

44.9 

24.9 

Reed’s  Triumph 

5.1 

38.4 

5.8 

6.2 

14.2 

29.2 

65.6 

23.5 

Sexrads 

17.6 

46.2 

8.7 

6.3 

18.1 

33.9 

51.8 

26.1 

1914 

1915 

1916 

1917 

1918 

1914-1918 

Success  Beardless 

6.4 

20.5 

28.7 

48.8 

42.5 

29.4 

Chevalier  II 

2.5 

17.2 

24.5 

40.3 

33.0 

23.5 

Gold 

2.3 

16.0 

32.7 

48.8 

19.0 

23.8 

Stoeckinger 

5.1 

16.0 

31.3 

38.3 

59.31 

26.0 

Swanneck 

1.9 

16.8 

30.7 

45.8 

29.1 

24.9 

1 Calculated  yield 


A comparison  of  Table  III  with  Table  II  will  show  that  barley,  on 
the  average,  has  produced  about  one-half  as  many  bushels  per  acre  as 
oats.  On  this  basis  the  price  of  barley  would  have  to  be  twice  the  price 
of  oats  per  bushel  to  make  't  equally  profitable  as  a market  crop.  In  the 
average  yields  for  the  State,  however,  (see  page  4),  barley  compares 
favorably  with  oats  and  not  only  yields  a larger  profit  per  acre  when 
used  as  a market  crop  but  also  yields  a considerably  larger  amount  of 
digestible  nutrients  for  feeding  purposes.  According  to  the  average 
prices  of  the  two  grains  (see  page  4)  it  takes  25  bushels  of  barley  to 


i8 


be  equal  to  40  bushels  of  oats.  In  total  digestible  nutrients  produced, 
23.5  bushels  of  barley  are  worth  40  bushels  of  oats. 

Silver  King,  Canadian  No.  21  and  Hannchen,  all  bearded  varieties, 
have  produced  the  largest  average  yields  among  the  varieties  tested  at 
this  station,  as  compared  with  Success  Beardless  which  has  been  used  as 
the  check  in  all  groups.  Where  beardiness  is  objectionable,  the  Success 
Beardless  is  the  most  generally  satisfactory  variety  to  use  in  this  part 
of  the  country. 

SPRING  WHEAT 

Spring  wheat  in  Indiana  is  not  a crop  of  much  importance.  About 
2003  acres  are  grown  annually  and  the  average  yield  per  acre  is  consid- 
erably below  the  average  yield  of  winter  wheat.  The  growing  season  for 
this  crop  is  too  hot,  particularly  during  the  ripening  period.  In  cool 
seasons,  however,  very  satisfactory  yields  have  been  reported.  In  the 
last  two  years  some  farmers  reported  yields  as  high  as  30  to  35  bushels 
per  acre  and  this  has  caused  many  inquiries  concerning  this  crop  to  be 
directed  to  the  Station. 

In  the  main,  this  department  regards  the  crop  as  too  uncertain  to 
recommend  it  for  general  sowing.  Some  years  there  have  been  total 
failures,  while  in  other  years  the  yields  have  reached  as  high  as  winter 
wheat.  It  is  quite  probable  that  the  best  success  with  this  crop  may  be 
expected  in  the  northern  part  of  the  State  where  the  average  summer 
temperature  is  several  degrees  lower  than  in  the  southern  part  of  the  State. 


Table:  IV. — Summary  of  Spring  Wheat  Variety  Tests,  1908-1918 


Varieties  grouped  by 
years  in  test 

Yields 

; in  bushels  per  acre 

1908 

1909 

1910 

1911 

1912 

1913 

1914 

19151 

Aver- 

age 

1908-1915 

Kubanka  (check) 

18.6 

16.5 

28.1 

5.9 

17.8 

14.8 

3.7 

13.2 

New  Minnesota  No.  163 

10.0 

19.0 

18.8 

5.9 

16.9 

12.7 

3.6 

10.9 

1912 

1913 

1914 

191 51 

1912-1915 

Kubanka  (check) 

17.8 

14.8 

3.7 

0.0 

9.1 

Marquis 

19.5 

9.7 

2.9 

0.0 

8.0 

New  Marvel 

16.4 

14.6 

4.2 

0.0 

8.8 

New  Minnesota  No.  163 

16.9 

12.7 

3.6 

0.0 

8.3 

Regenerated  Red  Fife 

14.7 

11.7 

3.1 

0.0 

7.4 

1910 

1911 

1912 

1913 

1914 

19151 

1915 

1917 

1918 

1910-1918 

Kubanka  (check) 

28.1 

5.9 

17.8 

14.8 

3.7 

0.0 

25.0 

23.8 

24.1 

15.9 

New  Marvel 

15.0 

6.8 

16.4 

14.6 

4.2 

0.0 

14.5 

26.8 

24.7 

13.7 

1915 

1917 

1918 

1916-1918 

Kubanka  (check) 

25.0 

23.8 

24.7 

24.5 

New  Minnesota  No.  169 

16.0 

24.2 

21.5 

20.6 

1 The  crop  of  1915  was  a complete  failure,  due  to  the  ravages  of  Hessian  fly  and  red  rust, 
but  was  counted  in  obtaining  the  average  yield 


19 


Table  IV  shows  the  results  of  trials  with  different  varieties  of 
spring  wheat  on  the  Station  plots.  These  varieties  have  frequently  pro- 
duced seed  of  very  poor  quality.  Marquis  and  Regenerated  Red  Fife 
are  the  two  most  promising  varieties  for  Indiana  conditions.  Kubanka, 
a macaroni  wheat,  is  a hard  spring  wheat  of  the  Durum  type  and  has 
given  very  creditable  yields  as  compared  with  spring  wheats  of  the 
ordinary  bread-making  varieties.  Spring  wheat  in  Indiana  seems  to  be 
particularly  subject  to  blight  and  scab  as  well  as  shrivelling  of  the  grain 
due  to  hot  weather.  The  cultural  requirements  for  spring  wheat  are 
very  similar  to  those  required  for  oats.  The  rate  of  seeding  is  the 
same  as  for  winter  wheat. 

SPRING  EMMER 

Spring  emmer  has  been  highly  spoken  of  for  feeding  purposes.  It, 
however,  has  too  high  a per  cent,  of  hull  to  make  it  of  any  particular 
value  as  compared  with  other  spring  grains.  Only  a very  small  acreage 
was  reported  for  Indiana  in  the  last  census,  with  an  average  yield  of  a 
little  less  than  20  bushels  per  acre,  including  hull.  It  is  not  to  be  recom- 
mended for  general  use  in  this  state. 

SPRING  RYE 

Not  a great  deal  is  known  about  spring  rye.  The  Station  has  grown 
it  during  three  different  years,  1910,  1911  and  1918,  but  definite  con- 
clusions cannot  be  drawn  from  the  limited  data  at  hand.  The  average 
yield  for  the  three  years  was  29.1  bushels  per  acre,  while  in  the  same 
years  the  average  yield  of  winter  rye  was  34.9  bushels  per  acre.  Spring 
rye  does  not  seem  to  have  any  particular  place  among  grain  crops  in 
Indiana  and  very  little  of  it  is  produced. 

COMPARATIVE  YIELDS  OF  SMALL  GRAINS 

For  the  purpose  of  comparison,  to  give  an  idea  of  what  may  be  ex- 
pected from  the  various  small  grains  in  Indiana,  attention  is  called  to  the 
yields  secured  on  the  trial  grounds  of  the  Station  at  LaFayette  during 
the  last  nine  years. 

Table  V. — Comparative  Yields  of  All  Small  Grains 


Years  tested  and  yields  in  bushels  per  acre 


Kind  of  grain 

1910 

1911 

1912 

1913 

1914 

1915 

1916 

1917 

1918 

Aver- 

age 

Spring  wheat 

15.0 

6.8 

16.4 

14.6 

4.2 

0.0 1 

14.5 

26.8 

24.7 

13.7 

Spring  barley 

45.7 

20.9 

37.8 

7.3 

6.4 

20.5 

28.7 

48.8 

42.5 

28.7 

Oats 

39.7 

25.2 

70.5 

35.3 

15.6 

69.8 

62.4 

82.8 

71.4 

52.6 

Spring  emmer 

32.2 

33.1 

16.5 

8.7 

24.5 

Spring  rye 

29.8 

16.6 

40.8 

Winter  wheat 

18.5 

28.3 

31.2 

34.2 

27.6 

37.6 

10.7 

34.1 

40.8 

29.2 

Winter  rye 

32.5 

30.0 

54.7 

34.8 

28.0 

46.2 

40.0 

39.7 

42.1 

38.7 

1 The  spring  wheat  crop  of  1915  was  a complete  failure  due  to  Hessian  Fly  and  rust 
but  the  year  was  included  in  making  up  the  average  yield 


20 


In  Table  V,  it  will  be  noted  that  the  winter  grains  have  been  much 
more  profitable  than  the  spring  grains.  Oats  have  been  the  most  profit- 
able of  the  spring  grains.  Winter  wheat  and  winter  rye  have  been  about 
equal  in  money  value.  At  the  average  farm  prices  (see  page  4)  for  the 
nine  years  for  which  the  yields  are  shown  in  Table  V,  the  gross  returns 
per  acre  for  the  principal  crops  have  been:  oats,  $23.14;  barley,  $20.38; 
spring  wheat,  $17.26;  winter  wheat,  $37.08,  and  winter  rye,  $37.54. 


30.7 
>2  b 


MM.-iM  T or  ILMMOIS  LIBRARY 

PURDUE  UNIVERSITY 


Agricultural  Experiment 


Bulletin  No.  22 6 
January,  1919 


Fig.  1.  Red  clover  is  the  most  practical  legume  for  ordinary  farm  use  in  Indiana 


THE  VALUE  OF  LEGUMES  ON  INDIANA  SOILS 


Published  by  the  Station: 
LAFAYETTE,  INDIANA 
U.  S.  A. 


The  successful  growth  of  clover  or  other  leguminous  crops  is  an 
essential  factor  in  maintaining  the  fertility  of  most  Indiana  soils.  Leg- 
umes are  soil  renovators  in  a marked  degree  and  may  be  very  profit- 
ably employed  in  building  up  run-down  soils.  Without  legumes,  the 
problems  of  maintaining  adequate  supplies  of  organic  matter  and  nitro- 
gen in  soils  are  difficult;  with  legumes,  they  are  simple. 

To  produce  maximum  crops,  the  ordinary  soils  of  the  State  should 
bear  clover  or  some  other  legume  at  least  once  every  three  or  four 
years  and  most  of  the  produce  should  go  back  to  the  land  in  one  form 
or  another.  In  a rotation  of  corn,  wheat  and  clover,  averaging  60 
bushels  of  corn,  25  bushels  of  wheat  and  two  tons  of  clover  hay  to  the 
acre,  where  the  corn  stalks  and  second  growth  clover  are  left  on  the 
ground,  the  wheat  grain  sold,  the  ear  corn,  clover  hay  and  wheat  straw 
utilized  as  feed  and  bedding  and  the  manure  carefully  saved  and  re- 
turned to  the  land,  the  nitrogen  balance  in  the  soil  will  be  just  about 
maintained. 

The  importance  of  phosphorus,  lime  and  manure  on  Indiana  soils 
has  been  shown  in  recent  bulletins  of  this  station.  The  results  of  field 
experiments  reported  in  this  bulletin  show  that  the  inclusion  of  a fair 
proportion  of  clover  or  other  legumes  in  the  crop  rotation  is  fully  as 
important  in  maintaining  soil  fertility. 


THE  VALUE  OF  LEGUMES  ON  INDIANA  SOILS 


A.  T.  Wiancko  S.  D.  Conner 


S.  C.  Jones 


SUMMARY 

From  25  to  50  per  cent,  of  the  nitrogen  and  humus  of  Indiana  soils 
has  been  used  up  or  lost  by  the  system  of  cropping  they  have  undergone. 

The  increased  growth  of  legumes  is  the  easiest  and  most  profitable 
method  of  restoring  nitrogen  and  organic  matter  to  run-down  soils. 

The  annual  acreage  of  legumes  grown  in  Indiana  on  the  average,  is 
not  more  than  1,000,000  acres  out  of  a total  of  over  11,000,000  acres  in 
field  crops.  The  acreage  of  legumes  should  be  increased  at  least  three 
times. 

Clover  and  other  legumes  are  the  only  crops  that  have  the  power  of 
utilizing  free  nitrogen  from  the  air.  A two-ton  crop  of  clover  will  gather 
about  80  pounds  of  nitrogen. 

Besides  increasing  the  nitrogen  and  organic  matter,  legumes  improve 
the  physical,  chemical  and  biological  conditions  of  the  soil. 

In  experiments  conducted  in  various  parts  of  Indiana,  crop  rotations 
containing  legumes  produced  4.6  bushels  of  corn  and  4.7  bushels  of  wheat 
per  acre  more  than  rotations  in  which  no  legumes  were  grown.  These  aver- 
ages are  for  61  crops  on  eight  experiment  fields  during  the  last  12  years. 

Clover  and  other  legumes  may  fail  to  do  well  because  of  soil  acidity, 
poor  drainage,  lack  of  phosphate,  potash  or  organic  matter. 

To  succeed  with  clover,  wet  soils  must  be  drained;  acid  soils  must 
be  limed ; phosphate  will  nearly  always  be  needed  and  sometimes  potash 
may  be  required. 

Clover  is  the  most  practical  legume  for  general  farm  use  in  Indiana. 
When  clover  fails,  soybeans  and  cowpeas  are  good  substitutes  to  fill  its 
place  in  the  rotation. 

The  more  recently  introduced  legumes,  such  as  alfalfa,  soybeans, 
sweet  clover  and  vetch,  will  usually  need  to  be  specially  inoculated  with 
their  particular  nitrogen  gathering  bacteria  when  first  used. 

Some  legumes  are  more  tolerant  of  poor  soil  conditions  than  red 
clover.  Alsike  is  best  for  wet  soils.  Soybeans  and  cowpeas  are  best  for 
acid  soils,  while  hairy  vetch  and  cowpeas  may  be  grown  on  light  sands. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  successful  growth  of  clover  or  other  leguminous  crops  is  an 
essential  factor  in  maintaining  the  fertility  of  most  Indiana  soils.  Legumes 
are  soil  renovators  in  a marked  degree  and  may  be  very  profitably  em- 
ployed in  building  up  run-down  soils.  Without  legumes,  the  problems 
of  maintaining  adequate  supplies  of  organic  matter  and  nitrogen  in  soils 
are  difficult ; with  legumes,  they  are  simple. 

All  the  light  colored  soils  of  the  State  are  deficient  in  organic  matter 
and  nitrogen  and  under  ordinary  systems  of  cropping  are  becoming  more 


4 


and  more  depleted  of  these  essential  constituents.  In  a recent  chemical 
examination  of  a large  number  of  representative  soil  samples  from  fields 
which  had  been  under  cultivation  for  from  50  to  75  years  and  from  ad- 
joining fence  rows  or  woods  areas  of  the  same  soil  types  that  had  never 
been  under  cultivation,  it  was  found  that  on  the  average,  the  cultivated 
soils  had  lost  26  per  cent,  of  their  total  organic  matter,  47  per  cent,  of 
their  humus  and  28  per  cent,  of  their  nitrogen  content.  These  losses 
have  had  a serious  effect  upon  the  crop  producing  powers  of  the  fields 
concerned  and  in  many  cases  they  are  no  longer  yielding  profitable  re- 
turns. 

To  produce  maximum  crops,  the  ordinary  soils  of  Indiana  should 
bear  clover  or  some  other  legume  at  least  once  every  three  or  four  years 
and  most  of  the  produce  should  go  back  to  the  land  in  one  form  or  an- 
other. In  a rotation  of  corn,  wheat  and  clover,  averaging  60  bushels  of 
corn,  25  bushels  of  wheat  and  two  tons  of  clover  hay  to  the  acre,  where 
the  corn  stalks  and  second  growth  clover  are  left  on  the  ground,  the 
wheat  grain  sold,  the  ear  corn,  clover  hay  and  wheat  straw  utilized  as 
feed  and  bedding  and  the  manure  carefully  saved  and  returned  to  the  land, 
the  nitrogen  balance  in  the  soil  will  be  just  about  maintained. 

To  get  an  idea  of  how  far  short  farmers  are  falling  in  this  matter 
of  maintaining  the  nitrogen  balance  in  the  soil,  the  acreage  of  legumes  and 
the  acreage  of  non-legumes  annually  produced  on  the  farms  of  Indiana 
should  be  compared. 

Average  Annual  Acreages  of  Field  Crops  Produced  in  Indiana  During 
the  Last  10-Year  Period,  1908-1917 


Corn  4,884,300  acres 

Hay 2,056,300  acres 

Wheat 2,136,700  acres 

Oats  1,713,200  acres 

Rye  104,900  acres 

Potatoes  84,400  acres 

Miscellaneous  field  crops  estimated.  . . . 125,000  acres 


Total  acreage 


11,104,800  acres 


Of  this  total  acreage,  it  is  estimated  that  not  over  1,000,000  acres 
(included  under  hay  and  miscellaneous)  are  in  clover  and  other  legumes. 
This  means  that  only  about  one-eleventh  of  the  total  acreage  of  field 
crops  in  Indiana  is  legumes.  It  should  be  at  least  three  times  as  much  if 
soil  fertility  is  to  be  economically  maintained. 

Ordinary  crops  of  corn,  oats,  wheat  and  grass  on  the  average  will 
take  from  the  soil  upwards  of  40  pounds  of  nitrogen  per  acre  per  year. 
There  is  also  more  or  less  unavoidable  loss  of  nitrogen  through  leaching 
and  the  natural  processes  going  on  in  the  soil.  Without  legumes,  even 
under  the  best  systems  of  management,  only  a small  portion  of  the 
nitrogen  thus  removed  can  be  returned  to  the  soil.  To  supply  it  in  the 


5 

form  of  commercial  fertilizers  is  out  of  the  question  on  the  ground  of 
expense.  The  only  practical  means  of  making  good  the  nitrogen  loss- 
es or  increasing  the  supply  in  the  soil  is  the  growing  and  turning  under 
of  clover  or  other  legumes. 

HOW  LEGUMES  INCREASE  SOIL  FERTILITY 

The  value  of  clover  and  other  legumes  in  increasing  the  yields  of 
grain  and  other  non-leguminous  crops  grown  in  a rotation  has  long  been 
recognized  but  only  within  the  last  half  century  has  it  been  known  that 
the  principal  reason  for  this  is  the  fact  that  legumes  add  nitrogen  to  the 
soil.  They  do  this  by  means  of  bacteria  which  develop  in  nodules  on 
their  roots.1  These  bacteria  have  the  power  of  collecting  nitrogen  from 
the  inexhaustible  supplies  in  the  atmosphere.  Each  acre  of  the  earth’s 
surface  has  above  it  70,000,000  pofinds  of  nitrogen.  The  nodule-forming 
bacteria,  which  normally  live  on  the  roots  of  legumes,  feed  upon  this 
atmospheric  nitrogen  and  convert  it  into  forms  which  can  be  utilized  by 
succeeding  crops  of  other  kinds,  such  as  corn,  small  grains  and  grasses, 
which  are  not  able  directly  to  utilize  atmospheric  nitrogen ; only  the 
legumes  can  do  this.  A two-ton  crop  of  clover  will  require  about  120 
pounds  of  nitrogen,  about  80  pounds  of  which  will  be  gathered  from  the 
air,  and  will  be  a clear  gain  to  the  soil  if  the  crop  is  turned  under.  The 
roots  and  stubble  of  such  a crop  will  contain  about  half  as  much  nitrogen 
as  the  tops,  or  about  40  pounds  per  acre.  Since  legumes  can  utilize 
available  soil  nitrogen  as  well  as  other  crops,  a certain  amount  of  the 
nitrogen  contained  in  them  will  have  come  from  the  soil.  For  the  pur- 
pose of  calculations,  it  is  commonly  estimated  that  the  amount  of  nitro- 
gen thus  taken  from  the  soil  by  legumes  is  about  equal  to  that  contained 
in  their  roots  and  stubble.  This  means  that  if  the  top  growth  of  the  crop 
is  removed  from  the  land  there  is  no  gain  of  nitrogen  in  the  soil.  It  is 
only  when  top  growth  is  plowed  under,  either  directly  or  in  the  form  of 
manure,  that  the  soil  can  be  built  up  in  nitrogen,  and  the  amount  added 
will  be  directly  proportional  to  the  amount  of  material  plowed  under. 

In  a trial  of  soybean  and  cowpea  cover  crops  after  wheat  on  the 
Purdue  Farm  experiment  field  during  three  years  (1909-1911),  soy- 
beans made  an  average  of  six  tons  and  cowpeas  an  average  of  7.1  tons  of 
green  top  growth  per  acre.  The  soybeans  contained  92.4  pounds  of 
nitrogen  in  the  tops  and  13  pounds  in  the  stubble  and  roots  to  the  depth 
of  18  inches.  The  cowpeas  contained  112.5  pounds  of  nitrogen  in  the 
tops  and  16.8  pounds  in  the  roots  and  stubble.’  These  cover  crops,  turned 
under  green,  added  an  average  of  over  100  pounds  of  nitrogen  to  the 
soil  if  we  consider  that  an  amount  of  nitrogen  equal  to  that  in  the  roots 
and  stubble  came  from  the  soil.  In  experiments  at  the  Rhode  Island 
and  Delaware  experiment  stations  it  was  found  that  crops  of  clover,  soy- 
beans, cowpeas  and  vetch  added  an  average  of  112  pounds  of  nitrogen 
to  the  soil  in  a single  season.  These  additions  of  nitrogen  to  the  soil  by 

1 It  is  now  known  that  Azotobaoter  and  related  forms  of  bacteria  are  able  to  fix  at- 
mospheric nitrogen  a's  well  as  the  legume  bacteria.  These  bacteria  require  a supply  of 
decomposable  organic  matter  for  food  and  do  not  live  on  the  live  roots  of  plants.  They 
also  require  an  abundance  of  lime  and  the  other  soil  conditions  that  are  favorable  to  the 
growth  of  clover.  Undoubtedly,  the  turning  under  of  a legume  crop  residue  will  supply  the 
decaying  organic  matter  that  Azotobacter  require  and  in  this  way  additional  nitrogen  may 
be  fixed 


6 


legumes  are  well  worth  while  considering  what  they  would  cost  if  added 
in  the  form  of  commercial  fertilizer.  To  supply  ioo  pounds  of  nitrogen 
in  the  form  of  manure  or  fertilizer  would  require  io  tons  of  manure  or 
650  pounds  of  nitrate  of  soda  or  two  and  one-half  tons  of  a 2-8-2  fertilizer. 

Legumes  can  also  be  utilized  for  supplying  organic  matter  to  the 
soil  if  turned  under  and  by  their  use  in  this  way,  this  important  soil  con- 
stituent as  well  as  nitrogen  may  be  maintained  or  increased  at  will  and 
in  the  most  profitable  manner.  Other  crops  than  legumes  will  provide 
organic  matter  but  they  cannot  of  themselves  add  nitrogen.  Leguminous 
organic  matter  is  therefore  the  most  valuable.  Most  legumes  have  a 
marked  mellowing  effect  upon  the  soil  and  leave  it  in  good  physical  con- 
dition for  succeeding  crops.  When  used  as  cover  crops,  legumes  not  only 
add  nitrogen  from  the  air  but  also  conserve  and  make  more  available 
other  plant  foods  which  they  gather  from  the  soil.  By  means  of  their 
deep  root  systems  and  strong  feeding  powers  legumes  bring  up  consid- 
erable quantities  of  mineral  matter  from  the  subsoil  which,  when  they 
decay,  is  made  available  to  other  crops  following.  The  decay  of  legumes 
in  the  soil  also  favors  the  work  of  beneficial  soil  bacteria  which  bring 
about  favorable  chemical  reactions  upon  mineral  plant  foods,  making 
them  available  to  succeeding  crops.  It  has  been  estimated  that  a good 
crop  of  clover  has  in  its  tops  and  roots  as  much  plant  foot  as  10  tons  of 
ordinary  manure. 

Many  examples  of  the  beneficial  effects  of  legumes  upon  the  fertility 
of  the  soil  may  be  found  in  the  work  of  other  experiment  stations.  In 
an  experiment  at  the  New  Jersey  Station  where  wheat  and  rye  have  been 
grown  in  continuous  culture  since  1909,  a portion  of  each  plot  has  been 
treated  with  a cowpea  or  soybean  cover  crop,  seeded  after  harvest  and 
turned  under  in  the  fall  before  reseeding  to  wheat  or  rye.  As  the  aver- 
age for  the  first  eight  years  (1909  to  1916  inclusive)  the  yield  of  wheat 
has  been  19.7  bushels  per  acre  after  the  legume  cover  crop  and  11.6 
bushels  without  the  legume  cover  crop.  The  yield  of  rye  has  been  22.3 
bushels  with  the  legume  cover  crop  and  16.7  bushels  without  it.1  At  the 
Maryland  Station  crimson  clover  was  plowed  under  for  corn  and  pota- 
toes and  the  yields  compared  with  those  on  untreated  land.  On  the  un- 
treated land,  the  yield  of  corn  was  39.3  bushels  and  the  yield  of  potatoes 
52.8  bushels  per  acre.  On  the  land  where  crimson  clover  had  been 
plowed  under,  the  yield  of  corn  was  46  bushels  and  the  yield  of  potatoes 
72.3  bushels  per  acre.2  At  the  Alabama  Station,  sorghum  after  sorghum 
stubble  yielded  3.65  tons; 'after  cowpea  and  velvet  bean  stubble,  5.73 
tons;  after  cowpea  and  velvet  bean  vines  turned  under,  6.24  tons  of  for- 
age per  acre.3  The  Rothamsted  Experiment  Station  in  England  reports 
an  experiment  where  clover  residues  were  plowed  under  in  1911  and  fol- 
lowed with  oats  in  1912  and  barley  in  1913.  The  yield  of  oats  was  41 
bushels  and  of  barley  39.3  bushels  per  acre  on  the  clover  residue  plots  as 
compared  with  17  bushels  of  oats  and  34  bushels  of  barley  on  untreated 
land.  At  Ottawa,  Canada,  land  that  was  in  clover  in  1900  yielded  25.8 
tons  of  silage  corn  in  1901 ; 70.59  bushels  of  oats  in  1902;  195.33  bushels 


1 New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  Bulletin  No.  305 

2 Maryland  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  Bulletins  Nos.  31,  38  and  46 

3 Alabama  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  Bulletin  No.  120 


7 

of  potatoes,  3148  tons  of  carrots  and  22.3  tons  of  sugar  beets  per  acre 
in  1903.  The  corresponding  yields  on  unclovered  land  were:  silage  corn, 
20.08  tons;  oats,  58.82  bushels;  potatoes,  175.33  bushels;  carrots,  20.32 
tons;  sugar  beets  8.6  tons  per  acre.1  At  the  Nappan  Farm  in  Nova 
Scotia,  wheat,  oats  and  barley  grown  continuously  with  and  without  a 
clover  cover  crop,  gave  the  following  yields  in  1905:  without  the  clover 
cover  crop:  wheat,  34.33  bushels;  oats,  41.18  bushels;  barley,  32.71 
bushels  per  acre ; with  the  clover  cover  crop,  the  yields  were : wheat,  40 
bushels;  oats,  55.29  bushels;  barley,  37.29  bushels  per  acre.2 

The  importance  of  phosphorus,  lime  and  manure  on  Indiana  soils 
has  been  shown  in  recent  bulletins  of  this  station.  The  results  of  field 
experiments  reported  in  this  bulletin  show  that  the  inclusion  of  a fair 
proportion  of  clover  or  other  legumes  in  the  crop  rotation  is  fully  as 
important  in  maintaining  soil  fertility. 

THE  SCOTTSBURG  AND  LITTLES  EXPERIMENTS 

The  crop  rotation  experiments  on  the  Scottsburg  field  in  Scott 
County  and  on  the  Littles  field  in  Pike  County  present  two  good  ex- 
amples of  the  beneficial  effect  of  legumes  upon  the  fertility  of  the  soil. 
In  Table  I are  shown  the  average  yields  of  wheat  after  clover  and  after 
corn  for  a period  of  nine  years  on  land  receiving  no  treatment  other  than 
the  rotation.  In  the  first  case  the  rotation  is  wheat,  wheat  and  clover  with 
a cowpea  inter  crop  or  cover  crop  sown  after  harvesting  the  first  wheat 
crop  and  turned  under  or  disked  in  for  the  second  wheat  crop  in  the  fall 
of  the  same  season.  In  the  second  case,  the  rotation  is  corn,  wheat  and 
timothy. 


Table  I. — Effect  of  Legume  on  Wheat  Yields  on  Scottsburg  and  Littles 
Experiment  Fields,  Average  of  Nine  Years  on  Each  Field,  1907-1915 


• Particulars 

Average  wheat  yields — bushels  per  acre 

Scottsburg 

Littles 

Average 

Wheat  after  clover  in  a wheat  (cowpea 
intercrop),  wheat  and  clover  rotation 

11.9 

16.5 

14.2 

Wheat  after  corn  in  a corn,  wheat  and 
timothy  rotation 

7.6 

9.4 

8.5 

Difference  in  favor  of  wheat  after  clover 

4.3 

7.1 

5.7 

The  average  yields  of  wheat  have  been  small,  partly  on  account  of 
frequent  damage  by  Hessian  fly  and  winter-killing  and  partly  because  of 
the  impoverished  condition  of  the  soil.  Only  the  results  on  the  unfertil- 
ized check  plots  are  shown  in  this  comparison  because  the  fertilized  plots 
received  different  treatments  in  the  two  rotations  and  therefore  are  not 
strictly  comparable.  The  differences  shown  in  the  unfertilized  yields  are 
due  to  the  difference  in  the  rotations  only.  Where  the  wheat  follows 


1 Dominion  Experimental  Farms  Report,  1903 

- Dominion  Experimental  Farms  Report,  1905 


8 


corn  the  yields  are  much  smaller  in  both  cases  than  where  it  follows 
clover.  There  are  doubtless  other  limiting  factors  on  this  impoverished 
land  but  the  beneficial  effect  of  the  legume  is  clearly  shown  in  both 
cases.  For  the  wheat  following  clover,  the  ground  was  summer  plowed 
a month  to  six  weeks  after  harvesting  the  clover  hay  crop  and  the  seed 
bed  otherwise  prepared  in  the  usual  way.  Where  the  wheat  followed 
corn,  the  entire  corn  crop  was  removed  and  the  land  prepared  by  disking 
and  harrowing  before  drilling  the  wheat.  The  seeding  was  done  at  the 
same  time  in  all  cases.  The  soil  of  the  Scottsburg  field  is  Volusia  silt 
loam,  locally  known  as  “yellow  clay.”  The  soil  of  the  Littles  field  has 
not  been  classified,  but  is  a grayish-brown  silt  loam  common  in  that 
section  of  the  State. 

THE  WILSON  FARM  EXPERIMENTS 

In  the  crop  rotation  experiments  on  the  Wilson  Farm,  located  on 
Miami  and  Clyde  silt  loam  (“black  and  clay”)  soil  of  fair  fertility,  there 
are  three  rotations  in  which  wheat  follows  soybeans  used  as  a grain  crop. 
In  several  other  rotations  the  wheat  follows  corn.  A beneficial  legume 
effect  is  shown  in  all  cases  where  wheat  follows  soybeans.  The  yields 
of  wheat  in  these  rotations  have  been  considerably  larger  than  in  adjoin- 
ing rotations  where  wheat  follows  corn  with  otherwise  similar  treatment. 
The  average  yields  and  the  difference  in  favor  of  the  soybeans  are  shown 
in  Table  II. 


Table:  II. — Effect  of  Legume  vs.  Corn  on  Succeeding  Wheat  Yields, 
Average  Three  Years  on  Wilson  Farm,  1916-1918 


Average  yields  per  acre 

Particulars 

Wheat 

bushels 

Straw 

pounds 

Value  of 
produce  1 

Wheat  after  soybeans 

(average  of  3 rotations  for 
the  3 years,  or  9 crops) 

34.0 

3117.0 

$75.79 

Wheat  after  corn 

(average  of  3 rotations  for 
the  3 years,  or  9 crops) 

29.6 

2817.0 

66.24 

Difference  in  favor  of  wheat  after 
soybeans 

4.4 

300.0 

9.55 

1 Throughout  this  bulletin,  where  money  values  are  used,  corn  has  been  valued  at  $1.00 
and  wheat  at  $2.00  per  bushel,  stover  at  $6.00,  straw  at  $5.00  and  hay  at  $20.00  per  ton 


Good  yields  of  wheat  have  been  secured  in  both  the  corn  and  soy- 
bean rotations  but  the  wheat  after  soybeans  has  averaged  4.4  bushels  per 
acre  better  than  the  wheat  after  corn  in  otherwise  good  rotations.  Where 
the  wheat  follows  soybeans,  the  rotations  are  as  follows : corn,  soybeans 
and  wheat ; corn,  soybeans,  wheat  and  clover ; corn,  corn,  soybeans, 
wheat  and  clover.  Where  the  wheat  follows  corn,  the  rotations  are  as 
follows : corn,  wheat  and  alfalfa ; corn,  wheat  and  sweet  clover ; corn, 
wheat,  clover  and  timothy. 


9 


THE  NORTH  VERNON  EXPERIMENTS 

In  the  soil  fertility  investigations  on  the  North  Vernon  field  there  is 
included  a comparison  of  a corn,  wheat  and  clover  rotation  with  a corn, 
wheat  and  timothy  rotation  to  determine  the  relative  efifects  of  the  clover 
and  timothy  upon  the  fertility  of  the  soil.  In  both  cases  the  soil  has  been 
limed  and  receives  a dressing  of  six  tons  of  stable  manure  once  every 
three  years  for  corn.  The  soil  is  a whitish  silt  loam,  naturally  very  low 
in  organic  matter  and  nitrogen  and  before  being  limed  was  very  acid. 

In  Table  III  are  shown  the  average  yields  of  corn,  wheat  and  hay  in 
the  two  rotations,  together  with  the  differences  in  favor  of  the  rotation 
having  clover  instead  of  timothy  as  the  hay  crop. 

Table  III. — Clover  vs.  Timothy  in  Rotation  with  Corn  and  Wheat,  North 
Vernon  Experiment  Field,  1914-1918 


Average  yields  per  acre 


Rotation 

Corn 

bushels 

1914-18 

Stover 

pounds 

1914-18 

Wheat 

bushels 

1915-18 

Straw 

pounds 

1915-18 

Hay 

pounds 

1916-18 

Corn,  wheat  and  clover 

77.1 

4926.0 

19.8 

1890.0 

4147.0 

Corn,  wheat  and  timothy 

73.9 

4413.0 

15.4 

1410.0 

2600.0 

Difference  in  favor  of  clover 

3.2 

513.0 

4.4 

480.0 

1547.0 

It  will  be  seen  that  all  the  crops  have  produced  larger  yields  in 
the  rotation  containing  clover.  The  relatively  small  difference  in  the 
average  yields  of  corn  is  doubtless  due  to  the  fact  that  this  crop  receives 
the  manure.  Six  tons  of  manure  per  acre  are  plowed  under  for  corn  on 
the  timothy  and  clover  plots  alike.  This  manuring  seems  to  meet  most 
of  the  needs  of  the  corn  crop  and  largely  masks  the  legume  effect.  The 
wheat  and  hay,  however,  which  follow  the  corn  in  the  next  two  years, 
get  only  what  is  left  of  the  manure  and  the  clover  plot  shows  up  to  much 
better  advantage.  Clover  has  increased  the  yields  of  corn  by  3.2  bushels, 
wheat  by  4.4  bushels,  and  hay  by  1547  pounds  per  acre.  Expressed  in 
terms  of  money,  the  corn,  wheat  and  clover  rotation  has  been  worth  an 
average  of  $30.21  more  than  the  corn,  wheat  and  timothy  rotation,  or 
$10.07  Per  acre  Per  year. 

THE  WORTHINGTON  EXPERIMENTS 

On  the  Worthington  experiment  field  in  Greene  County,  clover  and 
timothy  are  being  compared  as  to  their  effect  upon  the  fertility  of  the  soil 
and  the  total  value  of  the  rotation  just  as  at  North  Vernon  on  limed  and 
similarly  manured. land.  The  soil  on  this  field,  which  is  a gray  silt  loam 
(Knox),  is  somewhat  better  supplied  with  organic  matter  and  nitrogen 
than  the  North  Vernon  soil  but  was  considerably  run  down.  On  account 
of  clover  failures  due  to  extremely  dry  weather  in  the  earlier  years  of 
the  experiment,  which  was  begun  in  1912,  no  comparison  of  the  clover 
and  timothy  effects  was  possible  until  the  1916  corn  crop,  which  was  the 


10 


first  that  followed  clover  on  one  plot  and  timothy  on  the  other.  The 
1917  wheat  crop  and  the  1918  hay  crop  were  the  first  to  follow  the 
clover  versus  timothy  treatment.  The  results  are  shown  in  Table  IV. 


Fig.  2.  Effect  of  legume  on  wheat,  Worthington  held,  1917.  Each  shock  is  the  produce 
of  one-twentieth  acre 


Corn,  wheat  and  timothy  rotation 
14.7  bushels  wheat  per  acre 


Corn,  wheat  and  clover  rotation 
24.7  bushels  wheat  per  acre 


Table  IV. — Clover  vs.  Timothy  in  Rotation  with  Corn  and  Wheat, 
Worthington  Experiment  Field,  1916-1918 


Average  yields  per  acre 


Rotation 

Corn 

bushels 

1916-18 

Stover 

pounds 

1916-18 

Wheat 

bushels 

1917-18 

Straw 

pounds 

1917-18 

Hay 

pounds 

1918 

Corn,  wheat  and  clover 

46.5 

2448.0 

21.8 

2113.0 

3380.0 

Corn,  wheat  and  timothy 

44.4 

2162.0 

15.7 

1651.0 

2280.0 

Difference  in  favor  of  clover 

2.1 

286.0 

6.1 

462.0 

1100.0 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  corn  and  hay  increases  due  to  clover  instead 
of  timothy  are  somewhat  smaller  than  at  North  Vernon,  while  the  in- 
crease in  wheat  has  been  larger.  There  is  no  apparent  explanation  for 
the  comparatively  large  increase  in  wheat  unless  it  be  that  dry  weather 
did  not  permit  the  corn  to  respond  as  fully  to  the  clover,  thus  leaving 
more  of  a residue  for  the  wheat.  The  small  average  yields  of  corn  are 
at  least  partly  due  to  unfavorable  weather  conditions,  causing  late  plant- 
ing and  poor  development.  The  total  average  value  of  the  increase  due 
to  clover  is,  however,  very  similar  to  that  at  North  Vernon,  being  $27.12 
per  acre  per  rotation,  or  $9.04  per  acre  per  year. 


II 


EFFECT  OF  SOYBEANS  VS.  CORN  ON  WHEAT  YIELDS  AT  NORTH 
VERNON  AND  WORTHINGTON 

On  the  North  Vernon  and  Worthington  experiment  fields  there  are 
comparisons  of  a soybean,  wheat  and  clover  rotation  with  a corn,  wheat 
and  clover  rotation.  In  both  cases  a favorable  legume  effect  is  shown 
on  the  wheat  yields.  Table  V shows  the  results. 


TablK  V. — Effect  of  Soybeans  and  Corn  on  Succeeding  Wheat  Yields  on 
North  Vernon  and  Worthington  Experiment  Fields,  Average  of 
Five  Years  on  Each  Field,  1914-1918 


Rotation 

Average  wheat  yields — bushels  per  acre 

North  Vernon 

Worthington 

Average 

.1 

Soybeans,  wheat  and  clover 

25.4 

22.2 

23.8 

Corn,  wheat  and  clover 

22.8 

19.8 

21.3 

Difference  in  favor  of  wheat  after 
soybeans 

2.6 

2.4 

2.5 

The  difference  in  the  wheat  yields  after  soybeans  and  after  corn 
are  in  favor  of  the  legume  in  both  cases,  being  2.6  bushels  per  acre  at 
North  Vernon  and  2.4  bushels  at  Worthington.  On  both  fields  the  land 
has  been  limed  and  the  corn  and  soybeans  receive  six  tons  of  manure 
and  200  pounds  of  acid  phosphate  and  the  wheat  receives  200  pounds  of 
a 2-8-4  fertilizer.  Which  of  these  two  rotations  will  be  the  better  in  the 
long  run  it  is  too  early  to  decide.  The  soybeans  may  not  prove  as  profit- 
able as  the  corn  in  a rotation  already  having  one  legume,  but  they  do 
show  a beneficial  effect  upon  the  yields  of  wheat. 

THE  PURDUE  FARM  EXPERIMENTS 

On  the  old  Purdue  experiment  field,  which  was  started  in  1889, 
several  different  systems  of  cropping  are  being  compared.  On  one  sec- 
tion of  the  field,  corn  is  grown  continuously  with  a rye  cover  crop.  On 
another  section,  wheat  is  grown  continuously  with  clover  seeded  in  the 
spring  and  turned  under  after  harvest.  On  another  section,  corn  and 
wheat  are  rotated  and  clover  is  sown  on  the  wheat  and  turned  under  the 
following  spring  for  corn.  On  another  section,  a full  three-crop  rotation 
of  corn,  wheat  and  clover  is  grown.  The  results  for  the  last  eight  years 
are  shown  in  Table  VI.  The  results  prior  to  1911  are  not  strictly  com- 
parable, because  on  the  rotated  land  only  one  crop  at  a time  was  grown. 
In  1911,  the  rotated  plots  were  divided  into  sections,  so  that  all  the 
crops  in  the  rotation  could  be  grown  every  year. 

These  experiments  have  not  been  altogether  satisfactory  on  account 
of  the  droughty  character  of  the  soil  which  is  very  shallow  and  is  under- 
laid by  a deep  bed  of  gravel.  The  results  of  these  experiments  are 
shown  in  Table  VI. 


12 


Table  VI. — Effect  of  Clover  in  Rotation  on  Corn  and  Wheat  Yields, 
Purdue  Farm  Experiment  Field,  191 1-1918 


Average  yields  per  acre 


Rotation 

Corn 

bushels 

Stover 

pounds 

Wheat 

bushels 

Straw 

pounds 

Corn  continuously 

25.3 

2345.0 

Wheat  continuously 

14.6 

1661.0 

Corn  and  wheat,  with  clover  inter  crop 

27.0 

1950.0 

17.7 

1865.0 

Corn,  wheat,  clover 

32.2 

2018.0 

17.9 

1736.0 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  yields  of  corn  have  averaged  5.2  bushels  more 
after  clover  in  the  three-year  rotation  than  after  wheat  in  the  two-year 
rotation  which  has  clover  only  as  an  inter  crop,  and  6.9  bushels  more 
than  where  corn  is  grown  continuously.  The  yields  of  wheat  have  been 
only  slightly  larger  in  the  three-year  rotation  having  a full  crop  of  clover 
than  in  the  two-year  rotation  where  the  clover  stands  only  as  an  inter- 
crop but  3.3  bushels  larger  than  under  continuous  wheat  culture,  where 
the  young  clover  is  plowed  under  shortly  after  wheat  harvest.  The 
relatively  small  legume  effect  in  the  three-year  rotation  is  due  partly  to  the 
fact  that  frequently  the  stand  of  clover  was  unsatisfactory  on  account  of 
summer  drought  after  wheat  harvest.  Another  factor  which  operates 
against  a better  clover  effect  in  these  experiments,  is  the  fact  that  only 
the  grain  crops  are  fertilized,  meaning  that  the  three-year  rotation  receives 
only  two-thirds  as  much  fertilizer  pjer  year  as  the  two-year  rotation. 

THE  WESTPORT  EXPERIMENT 

The  soil  fertility  experiment  field  at  Westport,  Decatur  County,  is 
located  on  the  same  type  of  soil  as  the  North  Vernon  field.  It  is  a flat, 
whitish  silt  loam  soil,  naturally  wet  and  sour.  A clover  and  timothy,  or 
legume  and  non-legume  comparison  is  one  of  several  subjects  of  study  on 
this  field  and  is  repeated  on  both  tiled  and  untiled  land,  with  and  without 
manure.  This  experiment  was  started  in  1915  but  the  1917  corn  and  the 
1918  wheat  crops  were  the  first  to  follow  the  legume  vs.  non-legume 
treatment,  which  began  in  1916.  Both  rotations  were  limed  at  the  rate 
of  four  tons  of  ground  limestone  per  acre  in  1915  and  the  corn  and  wheat 
receive  a phosphate  and  potash  fertilizer  in  all  cases. 


13 


Table;  VII.- — Clover  vs.  Timothy  in  Rotation  with  Corn  and  Wheat, 
Westport  Experiment  Field,  1917-19181 


Average  yields  per  acre 

Rotation 

Corn 

bushels 

1917-18 

Stover 

pounds 

1917-18 

Wheat 

bushels 

1918 

Straw 

pounds 

1918 

Hay 

pounds 

Corn,  wheat  and  clover 

56.4 

3178.0 

19.8 

1965.0 

None 

Corn,  wheat  and  timothy 

51.2 

2953.0 

14.4 

1557.0 

following 

clover 

j: 

Difference  in  favor  of 
! clover 

5.2 

225.0 

5.4 

408.0 

vs. 

timothy 

treatment 

1 These  results  are  the  averages  of  four  plots  each  season  (tiled  and  untiled,  manured 
and  unmanured) 


Table  VII  shows  the  average  yields  of  corn  and  wheat  for  the  two 
rotations.  Since  half  of  the  land  in  each  rotation  has  been  manured, 
the  legume  effect  doubtless  has  been  somewhat  masked  by  the  manure 
which  was  applied  for  corn  on  the  clover  and  timothy  land  alike.  It 
should  be  said,  too,  that  there  was  a considerable  amount  of  clover  mixed 
with  the  timothy  on  the  non-legume  plots,  probably  20  to  25  per  cent. 
Nevertheless,  the  increase  of  5.2  bushels  of  corn  and  5.4  bushels  of  wheat 
in  the  corn,  wheat,  clover  rotation  over  the  corn,  wheat,  timothy  is  con- 
siderable and  shows  a good  legume  effect  on  this  land. 

• 

THE  FRANCISCO  EXPERIMENT 

The  soil  of  the  Francisco  experiment  field  is  typical  of  the  hilly 
portion  of  the  unglaciated  area  of  southwestern  Indiana.  The  surface 
soil  is  a yellowish  or  reddish  silt  loam  with  a reddish  clay  loam  subsoil. 
The  soils  of  this  area  are  badly  eroded  and  in  many  places  gullied  and 
are  therefore  very  deficient  in  organic  matter  and  nitrogen.  They  are 
also  deficient  in  phosphorus  and  are  usually  acid.  The  experiment  field 
lies  on  a ridge  that  has  been  under  cultivation  for  about  30  years  but  is 
naturally  much  better  preserved  than  the  average  land  in  the  area.  How- 
ever, it  has  been  responding  very  profitably  to  manure,  lime,  phosphate 
and  legume  treatments.  This  field  was  laid  out  in  the  fall  of  1915  and 
so  far  there  have  been  only  two  corn  crops  and  one  wheat  crop  following 
legumes  in  the  legume  rotation  to  compare  with  the  same  crops  in  the 
non-legume  rotation.  The  field  was  started  with  cowpeas  and  millet  in 
the  place  of  clover  and  timothy.  The  clover  seeded  in  the  191^-16  wheat 
crop  failed  on  account  of  extremely  dry  weather  and  soybeans  were  sub- 
stituted as  the  hay  crop  for  1917.  This  means  that  the  1917  corn  crop 
and  the  1918  wheat  crop  followed  cowpeas  and  the  1918  corn  followed 
soybeans  as  substitutes  for  clover  in  the  corn,  wheat  and  clover  rotation. 
In  the  corn,  wheat,  timothy  rotation,  the  1917  corn  and  the  1918  wheat 
crop  followed  millet  in  the  place  of  timothy  in  1916. 


Fig.  3.  Effect  of  legume  on  corn,  Francisco  field,  1918.  Each  shock  is  the  produce  of 
one-twentieth  acre 

Corn,  wheat  and  timothy  rotation  Corn,  wheat  and  clover  rotation 

35.3  bushels  corn  per  acre  47.5  bushels  corn  per  acre 


Table:  VIII. — Legume  vs.  Timothy  in  Rotation  with  Corn  and  Wheat, 
Francisco. Experiment  Field,  1917-1918 


Average  yields  per  acre 

Rotation 

Corn 

bushels 

1917-18 

StoveT 

pounds 

1917-18 

Wheat 

bushels 

1918 

Straw 

pounds 

1918 

Hay 

pounds 

Corn,  wheat,  and  clover 

52.5 

4192.0 

20.4 

1815.0 

None 

following 

Corn,  wheat  and  timothy 

Difference  in  favor  of 

42.8 

3647.0 

13.7 

1215.0 

legume 

vs. 

timothy 

legume 

9.7 

545.0 

6.7 

600.0 

treatment 

In  Table  VIII  are  shown  the  average  corn  and  wheat  yields  in  the 
legume  and  non-legume  rotations  and  the  difference  in  favor  of  the 
legume.  The  only  difference  in  the  treatment  of  the  two  plots  is  that  the 
one  has  had  a legume  preceding  the  corn  and  wheat  crops  and  the  other 
has  not.  Both  areas  received  three  tons  of  ground  limestone  per  acre  in 
the  fall  of  1915.  The  very  good  increases  of  corn  and  wheat  in  the 
legume  rotation  over  the  non-legume  rotation  clearly  show  the  value  of 
cowpeas  and  soybeans  as  substitutes' when  clover  fails. 

CAUSES  OF  CLOVER  FAILURES 

Land  that  once  produced  good  clover  and  now  fails  to  do  so  has 
gotten  out  of  condition  in  one  way  or  another  due  to  improper  manage- 
ment. One  of  the  first  things  to  look  for  is  injurious  soil  acidity.  If  this 
is  found,  liming  is  the  remedy.  Constant  cropping  and  inadequate  re- 


i5 


turns  may  have  so  reduced  the  soil  organic  matter  that  this  has  become 
a limiting  factor.  Insufficient  organic  matter  means  bad  physical  condi- 
tions and  the  young  clover  plants  die  because  the  ground  bakes,  cracks 
and  dries  out  badly.  Reduction  in  organic  matter  also  means  less  food 
for  the  nodule-forming,  nitrogen-gathering  bacteria  and  a lessening  of 
the  beneficial  chemical  reactions  in  the  soil  which  make  plant  foods 
available  and  which  are  favored  by  decomposing  organic  matter.  Poor 
management  also  results  in  reducing  the  available  mineral  plant  foods  in 
the  soil,  especially  phosphorus,  which  at  best  is  not  abundant,  and  in 
some  cases  is  the  chief  requirement  to  make  clover  do  well  again.  Lack 
of  available  phosphorus  usually  goes  hand  in  hand  with  lack  of  both  lime 
and  organic  matter.  Poor  drainage  is  always  detrimental  to  clover.  Clover 
cannot  stand  ‘‘wet  feet”  and  its  natural  deep  rooting  habit  makes  good 
drainage  more  important  than  in  the  case  of  grain  crops. 

When  clover  fails,  farmers  are  sometimes  led  to  believe  that  it  needs 
artificial  inoculation.  This  is  seldom  if  ever  the  case  in  this  part  of  the 
country  where  clover  has  been  so  generally  grown  that  the  clover  bacteria 
are  present  everywhere.  Fresh  inoculation  is  not  the  remedy.  The  trouble 
will  be  found  in  some  improper  condition  of  the  soil.  All  of  these  causes 
of  clover  failure  can  be  remedied  by  proper  soil  treatment. 

HOW  TO  SUCCEED  WITH  CLOVER 

Considering  the  causes  of  clover  failure  as  stated,  it  is  evident  that 
certain  things  must  be  attended  to  before  success  with  this  crop  can  be 
attained.  Many  acres  of  clover  are  sown  each  year,  only  to  fail  because 
of  some  improper  soil  condition  which  could  easily  be  remedied.  Fortu- 
nately, the  ideal  soil  conditions  for  clover  are  also  the  most  favorable  for 
producing  other  crops.  All  ordinary  soils  can  be  profitably  put  into  con- 


Figr.  4.  Effect  of  ground  limestone  on  clover,  North  Vernon  field,  1916.  Each  shock  is 
the  produce  of  one-twentieth  acre. 


Manure  only 

3560  pounds  hay  per  acre 


Manure  and  limestone 
5520  pounds  hay  per  acre 


i6 


dition  to  produce  clover,  and  what  is  good  for  clover  will  also  be  good  for 
other  legumes. 

If  the  soil  is  wet  and  in  need  of  aeration,  tile  drainage  is  the  remedy. 
All  heavy  loam  and  clay  soils  will  be  benefited  by  tile  drainage  and  this 
must  be  provided  before  other  treatments  can  give  the  best  results.  The 
lines  of  tile  should  be  placed  not  more  than  three  to  four  rods  apart.  This 
applies  to  heavy  uplands  as  well  as  to  lowlands  that  do  not  drain  out 
readily. 

If  the  soil  is  acid  it  must  be  limed.  Tests  for  acidity  can  be  made 
by  the  county  agricultural  agent,  or  representative  soil  and  subsoil  samples 
can  be  sent  to  the  Soils  and  Crops  Department  of  the  Experiment  Sta- 
tion where  they  will  be  tested  free  of  charge  and  the  lime  requirements 
reported.  Ground  limestone  is  the  best  and  cheapest  material  for 
neutralizing  soil  acidity.  Two  tons  per  acre  will  be  sufficient  for  medium 
or  slight  acidity.  Some  soils  are  so  very  acid  that  much  heavier  applica- 
tions are  needed.  Other  forms  of  lime  may  be  used  but  they  are  usually 
more  expensive. 


Fig.  5.  Effect  of  acid  phosphate  on  clover,  Westport  field,  1918.  Each  cock  is  the  pro- 
duce of  one-fortieth  acre 


Lime,  manure  and  acid  phosphate 
4280  pounds  hay  per  acre 


Lime  and  manure  only 
2560  pounds  hay  per  acre 


Soils  that  have  been  heavily  cropped  and  are  out  of  condition  will 
usually  need  available  phosphorus.  Acid  phosphate,  or  some  other  avail- 
able phosphate,  such  as  bone  meal  or  basic  slag,  should  be  applied  heavily 
to  the  preceding  grain  crop.  At  least  300  pounds  per  acre  should  be  ap- 
plied so  as  to  supply  the  needs  of  both  the  grain  crop  and  the  clover  fol- 
lowing. On  limed  land,  the  available  phosphates  are  best.  On  slightly 
acid  soils,  heavy  applications  of  raw  rock  phosphate  may  sometimes  be 
used  satisfactorily  in  the  place  of  available  phosphates  for  clover  and 
other  legumes.  In  such  cases,  the  raw  rock  should  be  applied  at  the  rate 


i7 


of  at  least  one  ton  per  acre  without  the  previous  use  of  lime.  Raw  rock 
phosphate  when  applied  to  soil  has  an  acid  neutralizing  power  equal  to 
about  one-fourth  that  of  ground  limestone.  When  applied  without  lime 
to  acid  soils,  the  soil  acids  react  with  the  raw  phosphate,  making  some 
of  it  available  as  well  as  tending  to  neutralize  some  of  the  soil  acidity.  On 
very  acid  soils  this  is  not  sufficient  and  a liberal  application  of  ground 
limestone  should  be  made  and  this  followed  with  an  available  phosphate. 

If  the  soil  is  in  need  of  organic  matter  as  will  be  evidenced  by  its 
light  color  and  bad  physical  condition,  some  form  of  decomposable  or- 
ganic matter  must  be  provided.  For  this  purpose,  there  is  nothing  better 
than  a good  dressing  of  manure.  This  not  only  supplies  organic  matter 
but  also  provides  available  plant  food  and  favors  beneficial  bacterial  ac- 
tion in  the  soil.  When  manure  is  not  available,  straw  or  other  crop  resi- 
dues may  be  used  or  a green  manuring  crop  grown  and  plowed  under. 
Soybeans  and  cowpeas  have  been  found  to  be  excellent  crops  as  green 
manures  with  which  to  begin  the  improvement  of  a run  down  soil.  After 
such  a crop  has  been  turned  under,  if  the  other  needs  have  been  attended 
to,  there  will  be  no  trouble  in  getting  a stand  of  clover  and  when  this  is 
once  well  established  the  plowing  under  of  the  second  growth  will  help 
out  the  manure  and  crop  residues  that  may  be  returned  to  the  soil  to 
build  it  up  in  organic  matter. 

The  most  practical  method  of  seeding  clover  is  with  a small  grain 
crop.  Seeding  on  wheat  or  rye  in  winter  or  spring  is  most  common.  At 
LaFayette,  seedings  made  early  in  February  on  bare,  frozen  ground  have 
been  most  satisfactory.  The  advantage  of  this  practice  over  March  seed- 
ing is  that  there  is  a better  chance  for  the  seed  to  settle  into  the  soil  by 
repeated  freezing  and  thawing,  thus  preventing  germination  with  the 
first  warm  day  and  killing  by  the  next  cold  snap  as  often  happens  with 
March  seedings.  Top-dressing  the  wheat  with  manure  or  straw  after 
seeding  the  clover  will  materially  increase  the  chances  of  getting  a satis- 
factory stand  and  should  be  done  whenever  possible.  Tate  spring  seed- 
ing on  wheat  should  be  done  after  the  ground  is  dry  enough  to  work. 
The  ground  should  be  lightly  harrowed  with  a spike-tooth  harrow,  going 
crosswise  of  the  wheat  drills,  and  the  clover  seed  sown  immediately  after- 
wards. By  this  method  much  of  the  seed  will  fall  in  the  harrow  marks 
or  be  washed  in  and  covered  by  the  next  rain.  The  use  of  the  special 
clover  and  grass  seed  disk  drill  is  to  be  recommended  wherever  late  spring 
seeding  is  regularly  practiced  and  any  considerable  amount  of  seed  is 
sown  from  year  to  year.  Some  successful  farmers  regularly  make  two 
seedings  of  clover,  putting  on  half  the  seed  in  winter  and  half  in  spring. 

Oats  is  not  as  good  a crop  with  which  to  seed  clover  as  wheat,  be- 
cause its  more  leafy  growth  shades  the  ground  more  and  is  thus  more 
likely  to  smother  the  young  clover  plants.  It  also  occupies  the  ground 
later  into  the  summer  and  when  harvested  often  leaves  the  tender  clover 
exposed  to  damaging  heat  and  drought.  To  get  a strong  growth  of  clover 
with  oats,  the  oats  must  be  seeded  thinly  so  as  to  leave  more  room  for 
the  clover.  Two  bushels  of  oats  to  the  acre  should  be  the  maximum 
when  clover  is  seeded  with  it.  The  thinner  stand  of  oats  need  not  neces- 
sarily mean  a smaller  yield  of  grain,  since  the  heads  will  be  larger  and 
the  clover  will  certainly  have  a better  chance  to  develop. 


i8 


When  a spring  seeding  of  clover  fails,  too  many  farmers  break  the 
rotation  and  plant  corn  or  some  other  grain  crop  again  the  following  year. 
This  is  a mistake,  because  with  each  omission  of  clover  the  conditions 
that  cause  failure  become  worse.  Under  such  conditions  it  would  be 
much  better  to  try  summer  seeding  of  clover  or  to  use  an  annual  legume 
to  take  its  place  in  the  rotation.  Summer  seeding  of  clover  may  be  done 
on  a specially  prepared  seed  bed  after  harvesting  the  grain  crop  in  which 
the  spring  seeding  failed.  The  ground  should  be  plowed  right  after  har- 
vest and  worked  down  to  a fine,  compact  seed  bed  and  by  repeated  har- 
rowing at  intervals  of  io  days  or  so,  put  into  condition  for  sowing  clover 
alone  from  the  first  to  the  middle  of  August,  watching  for  a time  when 
the  moisture  conditions  are  right  and  using  eight  to  io  pounds  of  seed 
per  acre.  Seeding  should  be  done  after,  rather  than  before  a rain,  so  as 
to  avoid  crusting  of  the  ground  before  the  clover  can  germinate  and 
come  up.  The  chances  of  success  with  such  summer  seeding  are  at  least 
fair  unless  a prolonged  period  of  drought  is  encountered.  Some  farmers 
are  securing  successful  stands  of  clover  by  seeding  in  standing  corn  at 
the  time  of  the  last  cultivation  or  later  in  the  summer.  This  method, 
however,  is  more  risky  than  seeding  alone  on  specially  prepared  ground, 
because  with  the  competition  of  the  corn,  the  clover  is  more  likely  to 
fail  for  lack  of  moisture. 

ACID  TOLERANT  LEGUMES 

Some  legumes  will  stand  more  soil  acidity  than  others.  Red  clover, 
alfalfa  and  sweet  clover  must  have  soils  well  supplied  with  lime.  Cow- 
peas,  soybeans,  hairy  vetch,  alsike  clover,  white  clover  and  Japan  clover 
are  all  more  or  less  acid  tolerant  and  may  be  used  to  advantage  on  acid 
soils  that  for  one  reason  or  another  cannot  be  limed.  Cowpeas  and  soy- 
beans will  stand  the  most  acidity  and  good  crops  of  these  may  be  grown 
where  red  clover  would  fail.  They  may  be  used  either  as  hay  or  grain 
crops.  Alsike  clover  will  stand  some  acidity  and  may  also  be  used  on 
land  that  is  too  wet  for  red  clover,  which  also  applies  to  white  clover. 
Japan  clover  is  being  used  successfully  on  acid  soils  in  southern  Indiana. 
Hairy  vetch  is  good  for  acid  sandy  soils.  It  should  be  said,  however, 
that  all  of  these  legumes  will  do  best  on  non-acid  soils  and  if  acidity  is 
present,  the  land  should  be  limed  if  possible. 

SUBSTITUTES  FOR  CLOVER 

'Failure  to  secure  a stand  of  clover  should  never  be  allowed  to  cause 
the  rotation  to  be  broken  and  the  land  seeded  back  to  a grain  crop.  In 
the  experience  of  this  station  with  its  several  experiment  fields,  clover 
failures  have  frequently  occurred,  due  to  unfavorable  spring  conditions, 
drought  or  winter-killing.  Whenever  this  happens  an  annual  legume  is 
used  to  take  the  place  of  the  clover.  Soybeans  or  cowpeas  may  be  satis- 
factorily used  for  this  purpose.  Ordinarily,  soybeans  will  be  preferable 
and  the  crop  may  be  used  either  for  hay  or  for  grain.  On  southern  Indi- 
ana clays  or  on  northern  Indiana  sands,  the  cowpea  may  be  preferable. 
These  annual  legumes  will  have  almost  as  good  an  effect  upon  the  soil 
as  a crop  of  clover  and  in  themselves  may  be  just  as  valuable* 


i9 


Fig:.  6.  Soybeans  make  an  excellent  substitute  when  clover  fails.  They  can  be  used 
either  as  a bay  or  g:rain  crop.  Every  round  of  the  rotation  should  include  at  least  one  legume 


GENERAL  RECOMMENDATIONS 

Adopt  a systematic  rotation  of  crops,  including  clover  or  some  other 
legume,  at  least  once  every  three  or  four  years. 

Wherever  clover  fails  to  do  well,  apply  two  or  more  tons  of  ground 
limestone  to  the  acre. 

See  that  the  land  is  properly  drained  and  practice  good  tillage 
methods. 

Feed  as  much  of  the  produce  as  possible  and  carefully  conserve  and 
return  to  the  land  the  manure  produced,  as  well  as  any  unused  crop 
residues. 

Apply  from  150  to  200  pounds  per  acre  of  acid  phosphate  or  some 
other  available  phosphate  to  each  grain  crop  in  the  rotation.  In  a per- 
manent system,  where  manure  is  applied  for  corn,  enough  phosphate  for 
the  whole  rotation  may  be  most  conveniently  applied  when  seeding  wheat 
or  oats.  Under  certain  systems  of  farming,  where  the  crops  are  not 
all  fed  on  the  farm,  it  will  pay,  under  normal  conditions,  to  add  some 
nitrogen  and  potash  in  the  fertilizer, 

If  acid  phosphate  or  other  available  phosphate  cannot  be  secured,  a 
mixed  fertilizer  as  high  as  possible  in  available  phosphoric  acid  should 
be  used. 


20 


RECENT  PURDUE  PUBLICATIONS  RELATING  TO  SOIL  FERTILITY 


Experiment  Station  Bulletin  No.  157. 
Experiment  Station  Bulletin  No.  210. 

Experiment  Station  Bulletin  No.  213. 

Experiment  Station  Bulletin  No.  222. 

Experiment  Station  Circular  No.  66. 

Experiment  Station  Circular  No.  76. 

Experiment  Station  Circular  No.  79. 


Unproductive  Black  Soils 
The  Value. of  Phosphates  on  Indi- 
ana Soils 

The  Value  of  Lime  on  Indiana 
Soils 

The  Value  of  Manure  on  Indiana 
Soils 

The  Lime  and  Fertilizer  Needs  of 
Indiana  Soils 

Increasing  Crop  Yields  for  War 
Needs 

Indiana  Soils  Need  Phosphates 


PURDUE  UNIVERSITY 


Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


Bulletin  No.  227 
June:,  1919 


Fig.  1.  Egg  production  from  pens  fed  tankage  and  meat  scraps,  and  from  a pen  given 
no  meat-feed 


FEEDING  EXPERIMENTS  WITH  LEGHORNS 


Published  by  the  Station: 
LAFAYETTE,  INDIANA 
U.  S.  A. 


7 


The  average  farm  poultry  flock  of  Indiana  does  not  produce  as 
many  eggs  as  it  could  under  improved  conditions.  One  of  the  im- 
portant things  that  would  increase  the  “lay  of  the  hen”  is  better  feed- 
ing, and  the  chief  phase  of  this  feeding  would  be  more  animal  protein. 

The  egg  contains  a high  per  cent,  of  protein  in  the  white  or  al- 
bumen but  grains  are  very  deficient  in  this  element.  Thus,  to  manu- 
facture a large  number  of  eggs  something  besides  grains  must  be  fed. 
Skim-milk  and  meat  scraps  have  been  fed  at  this  station  with  good 
results,  but  the  Indiana  farmer  has  tankage  for  his  hogs  and  cotton- 
seed meal  for  his  cattle  and  so  wants  to  know  their  value  for  poultry. 

In  the  experiment  reported  in  this  bulletin,  tankage  is  found  to 
be  a valuable  feed  and  cottonseed  meal  a worthless  one  for  poultry. 


FEEDING  EXPERIMENTS  WITH  LEGHORNS 

A.  G.  Philips 


SUMMARY 
PART  I 

THE  FEEDING  VALUE  OF  TANKAGE  AND  MEAT  SCRAPS  IN 
RATIONS  FOR  LAYING  PULLETS 

Leghorn  pullets,  if  heavy  layers,  consumed  about  82  pounds  of  feed 
per  year. 

Pullets  that  were  poor  layers  used  within  18  pounds  as  much,  feed 
as  the  good  layers.  This  amount  of  feed,  if  of  the  proper  kind,  may 
increase  egg  production  over  100  eggs  per  bird. 

When  given  an  opportunity,  pullets  ate  eight  to  ten  times  as  much 
oyster  shell  as  grit. 

Results  indicated  that  the  presence  of  animal  protein  in  a ration 
increased  the  efficiency  of  the  other  feeds  given. 

Although  the  egg  production  varied  from  year  to  year,  the  general 
tendency  was  for  meat  scraps  and  tankage  to  be  equally  efficient. 

The  pullets  in  the  pen  fed  tankage  laid  an  average  of  183.5  eggs; 
in  the  meat  scraps  pen,  179  eggs;  and  in  the  no  meat-feed  pen,  59.35 
eggs  per  year. 

Under  war  time  conditions,  it  cost  slightly  over  $2.00  to  feed  a laying 
Leghorn  pullet  for  12  months. 

It  cost  an  average  of  $0,128  for  feed  to  produce  one  dozen  eggs  in 
the  tankage  pen,  $0,136  in  the  meat  scraps  pen  and  $0.33  in  the  no  meat- 
feed  pen. 

It  cost  less  to  feed  a pullet  when  no  tankage  or  meat  scraps  were 
fed,  but  it  cost  more  to  produce  one  dozen  eggs. 

The  amount  of  feed  required  to  produce  one  pound  of  eggs  was  3.6 
pounds  in  the  tankage  pen,  3.77  pounds  in  the  meat  scraps  pen  and  9.32 
pounds  in  the  no  meat-feed  pen. 

Sudden  severe  lowering  of  temperature  in  the  winter  retarded  egg 
production  of  Leghorns. 

The  highest  egg  producing  months,  regardless  of  the  ration  fed, 
were  March,  April  and  May. 

The  income  was  the  highest  during  the  spring  months  when  the 
prices  for  eggs  were  the  lowest. 

The  profit  over  feed  costs  was  $4.17  in  the  tankage  pen,  $4.60  in  the 
meat  scraps  pen  and  $0.43  in  the  no  meat-feed  pen. 

The  feeding  value  of  tankage  was  $1371.00  per  ton  and  of  the  meat 
scraps  was  $1051.00  per  ton. 

The  three  pens  involved  in  the  experiment  produced  eggs  of  similar 
fertility  but  the  tankage-fed  pen  was  consistently  lower  in  “hatchability” 
of  eggs  than  the  other  pens.  The  eggs  of  the  meat  scraps  pen  hatched 
slightly  better  than  those  of  the  no  meat-feed  pen. 

A Leghorn  pullet  produces  about  25  pounds  of  manure  on  the  roosts 
each  year. 

There  was  nothing  to  indicate  that  the  rations  given  had  any  influence 
on  the  mortality  of  the  flocks. 


4 


PART  II 

THE  FEEDING  VALUE  OF  COTTONSEED  MEAL  VS.  BUTTER- 
MILK IN  PURDUE  STANDARD  RATION  VS.  BUTTERMILK 
IN  DOUBLE  GRAIN  RATION 

Leghorn  pullets  in  this  experiment  consumed  about  65  pounds  of 
dry  feed  and  90  pounds  of  milk. 

Pullets  fed  cottonseed  meal  as  the  chief  protein  concentrate,  derived 
practically  no  food  benefit  from  it.  They  laid  no  better  than  birds  fed 
no  protein  concentrate  of  any  kind  in  other  experiments. 

Poor  layers  consumed  less  than  heavy  layers. 

Too  much  grain  in  a ration  cuts  down  the  egg  production. 

Pullets  in  the  cottonseed  meal  pen  laid  55.69  eggs ; in  the  double  grain 
pen,  137.85  eggs;  and  in  the  standard  grain  pen,  166.87  eggs  per  year. 

The  double  grain  ration  cost  less  to  feed,  because  of  the  large  amount 
of  the  grains  fed  in  proportion  to  the  mash. 

Under  pre-war  conditions,  it  cost  slightly  over  $1.00  to  feed  a Leg- 
horn pullet  for  12  months. 

To  produce  one  dozen  eggs  it  cost  an  average  of  $0.10  for  feed  in 
the  double  grain  pen,  $0.09  in  the  standard  grain  pen  and  $0.20  in  the 
cottonseed  meal  pen. 

In  the  standard  grain  pen  the  Leghorn  pullets  produced  one  pound 
of  eggs  from  3.28  pounds  of  feed. 

Sudden  lowering  of  temperature  of  several  degrees  seriously  re- 
tarded egg  production. 

The  average  profit  over  feed  was  $0.32  in  the  cottonseed  meal  pen, 
$1.79  in  the  double  grain  pen  and  $2.45  in  the  standard  grain  pen. 

Cottonseed  meal  did  not  influence  the  fertility  but  it  did  lower  the 
“hatchability”  of  eggs  somewhat. 

Increasing  the  grain  did  not  influence  the  fertility  or  “hatchability” 
of  eggs. 


PART  III 

THE  VALUE  OF  CONFINEMENT  VS.  SMALL  YARD  VS.  FREE 
RANGE  FOR  LEGHORN  HENS  AND  PULLETS 

The  larger  the  free  range,  the  greater  is  the  consumption  of  land- 
given  feed.  These  differences  were  not  as  marked  with  the  pullets  as 
with  the  hens,  and  with  both  they  were  slight. 

The  total  consumption  of  feed  was  similar  to  that  shown  in  Part  II. 
The  pullets  laid  about  60  more  eggs  each  than  the  hens. 

The  number  of  eggs  laid  by  hens  and  pullets  on  free  range  averaged 
128.75  eggs;  in  the  small  yard  124.4  eggs;  and  in  confinement  112.3  eggs 
for  one  year. 


5 


It  was  surprising  to  find  the  slight  differences  in  egg  production  as 
influenced  by  the  amount  of  range  permitted. 

The  pullets  in  confinement  were  rather  consistant  in  producing  fewer 
eggs  than  the  other  birds,  and  the  birds  in  the  small  yards  laid  fewer 
eggs  than  the  ones  on  free  range,  during  eight  of  the  12  months. 

Hens,  on  the  average,  do  not  lay  eggs  in  the  winter.  Poultrymen 
must  depend  on  pullets  for  winter  eggs. 

Data  on  the  influence  of  the  amount  of  range  on  fertility  and 
“hatchability”  were  very  conflicting. 

There  was  a greater  mortality  among  the  confined  birds  than  among 
the  other  birds. 

PART  I 

THE  FEEDING  VALUE  OF  TANKAGE  AND  MEAT  SCRAPS  IN 
RATIONS  FOR  LAYING  PULLETS 

Experiments  in  the  feeding  of  poultry  were  inaugurated  at  Purdue 
University  in  1910  and  the  work  with  Leghorns  for  the  first  four  years 
was  published  in  Bulletin  No.  182,  November,  1915,  and  the  work  with 
Plymouth  Rocks  for  the  following  three  years  was  published  in  Bulletin 
No.  218,  August,  1918.  Practically  all  of  the  feeding  work  has  been 
with  the  study  of  protein  feeds,  using  two  breeds  to  check  results. 

The  object  of  this  experiment  was  to  determine  the  feeding  value  of 
commercial  “digester”  tankage  as  compared  with  commercial  meat  scraps 
in  rations  for  laying  pullets.  Tankage  has  become  very  popular  on  the 
general  farm  but  its  value  in  feeding  chickens  is  not  generally  known. 

TIME 

The  different  experiments  were  conducted  between  the  following 
dates : 

Experiment  No.  1 — November  3,  1916  to  November  2,  1917 

Experiment  No.  2 — November  3,  1917  to  November  3,  1918 

Experiment  No.  2 is  a repetition  of  Experiment  No.  1 

HOUSING  AND  YARDING 

The  pens  were  each  10  feet  by  12  feet,  built  in  pairs,  with  concrete 
floors,  muslin  and  glass  fronts,  Purdue  trap  nests  and  were  modern  in 
every  way. 

Each  pen  had  a yard  130  feet  by  150  feet  in  area,  planted  to  young 
fruit  trees.  An  eight-foot  strip  of  sod  was  maintained  around  each  lot; 
four  rows  of  corn  were  grown  between  the  trees  in  the  summer  and  a rye 
cover  crop  planted  over  the  entire  area  in  the  fall.  This  made  what  was 
thought  to  be  as  nearly  ideal  farm  conditions  for  poultry  as  it  was  pos- 
sible to  secure  on  a new  experimental  farm.  The  lots  were  naturally 
devoid  of  trees  and  the  soil  was  made  up  of  Sioux  sandy  loam.  It  was 
first  class  for  poultry  but  poor  land  on  which  to  raise  crops.  The  houses 
faced  the  south  and  the  land  gently  sloped  to  the  north. 


6 


STOCK 

The  birds  consisted  of  Single  Comb  White  Leghorn  pullets,  hatched 
from  stock  on  the  Purdue  farm.  There  were  30  pullets  in  each  flock, 
which  were  early  hatched  and  similar  in  size,  vigor  and  development. 
Each  flock  had  pedigreed  full  sisters  in  every  other  flock.  In  other 
words,  30  sets  of  “triplets”  were  taken  from  the  pedigreed  pullets  and 
one  set  placed  in  each  pen.  This  plan  permitted  the  breeding  in  every 
pen  to  be  exactly  like  the  others  and  reduced  to  a minimum  any  differ- 
ences in  egg  laying  due  to  differences  in  stock.  Two  cock  birds  were 
placed  in  each  pen  during  the  hatching  season  and  changed  from  pen  to 
pen  every  few  days. 

RATIONS 

The  rations  used  were  the  same  as  those  used  in  previous  experi- 
ments, except  as  to  animal  protein,  and  are  considered  to  be  practical  on 
the  farms  of  Indiana.  The  rations  were  as  follows : 


Tankage:  Pen 
Grain 

10  pounds  corn 
10  pounds  wheat 
5 pounds  oats 
Mash 

5 pounds  bran 
5 pounds  shorts 
‘3  pounds  tankage 


Meat  Scraps  Pen 
Grain 

10  pounds  corn 
10  pounds  wheat 
5 pounds  oats 
Mash 

5 pounds  bran 
5 pounds  shorts 
3.5  pounds  meat  scraps 


No  Animae-Feed  Pen 
Grain 

10  pounds  corn 
10  pounds  wheat 
5 pounds  oats 
Mash 

5 pounds  bran 
5 pounds  shorts 


In  making  up  the  rations,  the  plan  was  to  use  the  meat  scraps  ration 
as  a basis  and  supply  as  much  protein  through  the  tankage  as  there  was 
in  the  meat  scraps.  The  meat  scraps  and  tankage  were  purchased  from 
commercial  packing  houses  in  large  enough  quantities  to  last  for  two 
years.  It  was  estimated  that  three  pounds  of  the  brand  of  tankage  used 
were  equal  in  protein  to  three  and  one-half  pounds  of  the  meat  scraps 
used.  Whenever  possible,  the  grains  were  purchased  in  large  quantities 
from  nearby  farms  and  the  other  feeds  were  obtained  from  local  eleva- 
tors. This  kept  the  feed  price  to  a minimum. 

The  grain  ration  was  changed  to  suit  certain  feed  conditions,  par- 
ticularly with  the  corn  and  wheat,  but  since  all  pens  were  treated  alike, 
any  change  was  not  thought  to  influence  any  results.  In  the  fall,  one 
pound  of  oil  meal  was  added  to  the  mash,  and  grit,  oyster  shell,  ground 
bone  and  water  were  always  available.  During  the  winter,  when  the  birds 
were  confined,  mangel  wurzels  were  used  as  green  feed.  The  bran  and 
shorts  were  fed  together  as  a dry  mash  and  the  grains  were  mixed  and 
fed  together.  The  tankage  and  meat  scraps  were  mixed  with  the  mash. 

PRICES  OF  FEEDS 

The  prices  of  feeds  as  charged  were  the  same  as  those  paid  for  the 
feeds.  They  varied  from  month  to  month,  although  the  feeds  bought  in 
quantity  remained  the  same  for  several  months.  The  following  state- 
ment shows  minimum  and  maximum  prices  paid  for  feeds  during  the 
two  experiments. 


7 

Minimum  and  Maximum  Prices  of  Feeds  per  One  Hundred  Pounds 


Feed 

Experiment  No.  1 

Experiment  No.  2 

Corn  __  _ _ 

$1.71— $3.75 

2.10-  3.55 

$2.16-$3.48 

3.55 

Wheat  _ _ 

Oats  _ _ __  _ 

1.37-  1.50 

1.50-  2.03 

Bran  _ _ 

1.50-  2.35 

1.85-  2.10 

Shorts  _ _ __  _ 

1.70-  2.85 

2.30 

Tankage  _ _ _ _ _ _ 

2.20 

2.20 

Meat  scraps  _ 

2.60 

3.75 

Oil  meal  _ _ _ 

2.85 

3.20 

Ground  bone  __  _ 

2.25-  2.35 

None  fed 

Grit  . __  

0.59-  0.66 

0.66-  0.98 

Oyster  shell  _ . 

0.59-  0.66 

0.66-  0.89 

METHODS  OF  FEEDING  AND  CARE 

The  mixed  grains  were  placed  in  a bucket  in  each  pen  and  the  dry 
mash  put  into  a hopper.  The  feeding  was  so  managed  that  the  grain 
and  dry  mash  were  both  consumed  in  the  same  length  of  time,  thus 
insuring  an  even  balancing  of  the  ration.  No  particular  trouble  was 
experienced  in  keeping  the  balance,  although  care  had  to  be  given  to 
insure  it.  The  grain  fed  in  the  early  morning  was  scattered  in  a deep 
straw  litter,  and  in  the  evening  the  birds  were  given  all  the  feed  they 
would  clean  up.  This  meant  feeding  about  one-third  of  the  grain  in  the 
morning  and  two-thirds  in  the  evening,  thus  increasing  the  appetite  for 
the  mash  throughout  the  day.  The  dry  mash  and  skim-milk  were  always 
accessible  and  green  feed  was  given  when  the  birds  could  not  obtain  it 


Table  I. — Average  Consumption  of  All  Feeds,  per  Bird,  in  Pounds 


Feed 

Tankage 

Meat  scraps 

No  meat-feed 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  1 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  2 

Aver- 

age 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  1 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  2 

Aver- 

age 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  1 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  2 

Aver- 

age 

Corn  _ _ __ 

27.79 

20.332 

24.06 

29.12 

19.949 

24.54 

25.42 

17.211 

21.31 

Wheat 

11.89 

20.332 

16.11 

12.43 

19.949 

16.19 

10.78 

17.211 

14.00 

Oats 

9.92 

10.665 

10.29 

10.39 

8.773 

9.58 

9.05 

8.606 

8.83 

Total  grain 

49.60 

51.329 

50.46 

51.94 

48.671 

50.30 

45.25 

43.028 

44.14 

Bran  

9.93 

10.665 

10.30 

10.39 

10.046 

10.218 

9.04 

8.606 

8.82 

Shorts  __ 

9.93 

10.665 

10.30 

10.39 

10.046 

10.218 

9.04 

8.606 

8.82 

Oil  meal 

0.36 

0.152 

0.256 

0.37 

0.152 

0.256 

0.31 

0.150 

0.23 

Total  mash 

20.22 

21.48 

20.85 

21.15 

20.24 

20.69 

18.39 

17.36 

17.87 

Total  grain  and  mash 

69.82 

72.81 

71.32 

72.09 

68.91 

70.50 

63.64 

60.39 

62.02 

Tankage  

5.96 

61.06 

6.033 

Meat  scraps  _ 

7.27 

7.032 

7.10 

Ground  bone  _ _ 

0.54 

0.27 

0.45 

0.23 

0.41 

0.20 

Grit  

0.54 

0.342 

0.44 

0.45 

0.304 

0.377 

0.41 

0.345 

0.38 

Oyster  shell 

3.16 

3.526 

3.343 

3.41 

3.24 

3.32 

1.60 

1.630 

1.62 

Total  dry  feed  _ _ 

80.02 

82.785 

81.40 

84.67 

79.491 

82.08 

66.06 

62.365 

64.21 

8 


in  the  yards.  Free  range  over  the  large  lots  was  allowed  except  for  a few 
cold  weeks  in  winter  and  the  birds  were  always  contented.  The  curtains 
over  the  open  fronts  were  closed  at  night  in  cold  weather  and  used  as 
outside  awnings  in  the  summer.  The  same  man  took  care  of  all  pens 
and  every  care  was  given  to  prevent  lice,  mites,  etc.,  and  to  insure  san- 
itation. 

In  Table  I is  shown  the  average  consumption  per  bird  per  year  of 
each  feed  given.  In  order  to  compare  one  pen  with  another  easily  and 
fairly,  certain  groups  of  feeds  are  totaled  separately  with  the  total 
dry  feed.  The  meat  scraps  and  tankage  are  not  considered  here  as 
part  of  the  mash  because  they  were  fed  in  different  amounts ; 
hence  would  make  the  totals  unfair.  Considering  either  the  grain, 
or  mash  and  grain  together,  there  is  a negligible  difference  be- 
tween one  year  and  the  next  with  the  same  pens  or  between  the 
averages  of  the  tankage  and  meat  scraps  pens.  The  no  meat-feed 
pens  ate  slightly  less  than  the  other  two  pens,  each  year.  Fowls  eat  a 
much  larger  amount  of  oyster  shell  than  grit  when  given  free  access  to 
both,  but  the  no  meat-feed  pens  consumed  about  half  as  much  oyster 
shell  as  either  of  the  others.  Roughly  estimating,  it  required  about  82 

pounds  of  feed  for  a Leg- 
horn per  year,  which 
would  mean  slightly  less 
than  one-fourth  pound  per 
day  of  grain,  mash  and 
mineral  feeds. 

It  will  be  noted  later  in 
this  publication  that  the 
egg  production  of  the  no 
meat-feed  pen  was  low  but 
that  the  feed  consumption 
was  high.  On  the  basis  of 
82  pounds  for  a good  layer 
and  64  pounds  for  a poor 
layer,  it  was  the  difference 
of  18  pounds  that  caused 
the  high  egg  production.  It 
is  not  always  the  problem 
of  how  much  a hen  eats  but 
what  she  eats  that  may  con- 
trol egg  production.  A very 
large  proportion  of  the  feed 
is  needed  and  utilized  for 
maintenance  of  the  body 
functions  and  often  it  re- 
quires but  little  more  to 
supply  the  hen  with  what 
TA/iH/>6£  /V£at  /Yo /VpjT-fepp  she  needs  for  heavy  egg 

Fig.  2.  The  relative  proportion  of  feed  consumed  that  production.  The  pOOT-lay- 

wasteuded  in  the  mam,facture  of  egg9’  to  that  which  was  ing  hen  ate  much  less  oyster 


9 


shell  because  she  did  not  need  it.  The  18  pounds  difference  in  consump- 
tion between  the  animal  feed  and  no  meat-feed  pens  was  made  up  largely 
of  meat  scraps  or  tankage  and  to  these  feeds  may  be  given  much  credit 
for  production. 


Table  II. — Average  Number  of  Eggs  per  Pullet,  per  Pen,  per  Year 


Experiment  No. 

Tankage 

Meat  scraps 

No  meat-feed 

1 

184.89 

191.22 

74.5 

2 

182.16 

166.79 

44.56 

Average 

183.53 

179.09 

59.53 

In  Table  II  is  shown  the  egg  production  which  is  the  most  important 
part  of  the  experiment.  In  Experiment  No.  r,  the  meat  scraps  pen  laid 
seven  more  eggs  than  the  tankage  pen  and  n 7 more  eggs  than  the  no 
meat-feed  pen.  In  Experiment  No.  2,  the  meat  scraps  pen  laid  16  eggs 
less  than  the  tankage  pen  and  122  eggs  more  than  the  no  meat-feed  pen. 
Egg  production  in  all  the  pens  was  very  high  in  Experiment  No.  1 and 
in  Experiment  No.  2 the  tankage  pen  production  was  higher  than 
would  generally  be  expected.  No  reason  is  known  for  the  variations 
one  year  with  the  next  in  the  meat  scraps  and  no  meat-feed  pens. 
Such  variations  are  not  what  would  be  desired,  but  the  tankage  and 
meat  scraps  pens  averaged  so  closely  together  that  these  feeds  might 
be  considered  of  similar  feeding  values.  The  birds  in  these  pens  laid  so 
much  better  than  their  sisters  in  the  other  pens  that  the  feeding  values 
of  tankage  and  meat  scraps  are  very  high. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  each  pen  had  full  sisters  in  the  other 
pens  and  it  was  interesting  to  note,  that  as  a rule,  a good  layer  in 
one  pen  had  a sister  laying  well  in  the  other  pens. 

It  will  be  noted  in  Bulletin  No.  182,  that  the  meat  scraps  pens 
in  1911  and  1912  did  not  lay  as  well  as  in  1917  and  1918.  This  increase 
is  the  result  of  pedigree  breeding,  permitting  the  use  of  known  sisters 
from  high  producing  ancestry  in  the  feeding  experiments. 

Noting  the  figures  in  Table  II,  it  is  very  evident  that  the  six  pounds 
of  tankage  or  the  seven  pounds  of  meat  scraps  fed  to  each  bird,  as  shown 
in  Table  I,  were  of  extreme  value  in  producing  eggs.  The  18  pounds 
difference  in  feed  consumed  increased  the  egg  production  124  eggs  in  the 
tankage  pen  and  120  eggs  in  the  meat  scraps  pen.  It  pays  to  feed  animal 
by-products  in  a ration  for  laying  fowls. 


IO 


Table  III. — Cost  of  Feed  per  Bird,  per  Year,  and  Feed  Cost  of  Pro- 
ducing One  Dozen  Eggs 


Experiment 

No. 

Tankage 

Meat  scraps 

No  meat-feed 

Cost 

feed 

Cost  one 
dozen  eggs 

Cost 

feed 

Cost  one 
dozen  eggs 

Cost 

feed 

Cost  one 
dozen  eggs 

1 

2 

.$1.68 

2.029 

$0,112 

0.114 

$1.80 

2.11 

$0,116 

0.156 

$1.37 

1.554 

$0,229 

0.432 

Average 

$1.85 

$0,128 

$1.96 

$0,136 

$1.46 

$0.33 

The  figures  in  Table  III  show  the  costs  involved  in  the  two  experi- 
ments. The  costs  during  the  second  year  were  greater  than  those  during 
the  first  year  due  to  increasing  feed  prices  but  the  differences  between 
the  tankage  and  the  meat  scraps  pens  were  small.  The  feed  cost  of  the 

no  meat-feed  pen  was  al- 
ways less  because  less 
feed  was  consumed.  The 
feed  cost  for  the  tankage 
pen  was  always  slightly  less 
than  for  the  meat  scraps 
pen  because  the  tankage  was 
cheaper.  However,  a 
cheap  feed  bill  where  no 
meat  scraps  or  tankage  was 
fed  did  not  cause  a low 
cost  per  dozen  eggs.  In 
Experiment  No.  2,  1918, 
the  poorly  fed  pen  pro- 
duced eggs  at  $0,432  per 
dozen,  a price  higher  than 
the  Indiana  farmer  aver- 
aged for  his  eggs  on  the 
market.  If,  as  many  peo- 
ple think,  the  feed  bill  is 
one-half  to  two-thirds  of 
the  total  expense  of  pro- 
ducing eggs,  then  those 
who  do  not  feed  tankage 
and  meat  scraps  are  prob- 
ably keeping  hens  at  a loss. 
A feed  cost  of  13  or  14 
cents  per  dozen  permits  of 
some  profit  and  shows  that 
it  is  advisable  to  spend 
money  for  feed.  The  high 
cost  of  feed  is  not  as  much  a problem  today  as  is  the  question  of  low  egg 
production.  If  egg  production  is  high  the  feed  cost  will  not  be  excessive, 
even  if  the  cost  seems  almost  prohibitive  at  times.  To  make  money, 
some  money  usually  has  to  be  spent  and  tankage  and  meat  scraps  are 
profitable  feeds  at  prices  demanded  today  and  at  the  prevailing  prices 
of  eggs. 


Fig.  3.  The  cost  of  feeding  a hen  for  one  year 
and  the  feed  cost  of  one  dozen  eggs 


I 


One  manufacturer  of  tankage  stated  that  he  was  afraid  to  recom- 
mend his  feed  for  chickens  for  many  reasons,  but  from  the  standpoint 
of  egg  production  and  cost  of  same  there  seems  to  be  no  indication  that 
it  is  not  as  good  as  meat  scraps. 


Table:  IV. — Average  Number  Pounds  of  Feed1  to  Produce  One  Pound 

of  Eggs 


Experiment  No. 

Tankage 

Meat  scraps 

No  meat-feed 

1 

3.46 

3.54 

7.07 

2 

3.74 

4.00 

11.57 

Average 

3.60 

3.77 

9.32 

1 Grit,  shell  and  bone  not  included 


In  Table  IV  is  shown 
the  efficiency  of  the  three 
rations  given.  Broadly 
speaking,  the  tankage  and 
meat  scraps  pens  did 
equally  well  in  transform- 
ing raw  material  into  a fin- 
ished product.  The  lack 
of  animal  by-products  in  a 
ration  decreased  the  effi- 
ciency of  the  grains, 
bran  and  shorts  and  made 
egg  production  very  expen- 
sive. It  appears  that  the 
presence  of  tankage  or 
meat  scraps  in  a ration  in- 
creases the  digestive  effi- 
ciency of  the  other  feeds. 

One  pound  of  eggs  from 
three  and  three-fourths 
pounds  of  feed  shows  effi- 
cient feeding  and  where 
such  results  can  be  ob- 
tained, the  question  of  feed 
cost  need  not  be  an  item  of 
consequence.  It  is  not  eco- 
nomical to  leave  animal- 
feeds  out  of  a hen’s  ration. 

In  Table  V is  given  the 
average  monthly  egg  pro- 
duction of  each  hen  and 

the  average  for  the  two  years.  It  is  by  monthly  averages  that  the 
poultryman  measures  his  egg  production  and  determines  whether  or  not 
his  flock  is  laying  sufficiently  well.  It  will  be  noted  that  regardless  of 
rations,  March,  April  and  May  were  the  highest  egg  producing  months. 
In  fact,  some  people  believe  that  any  hen  will  lay  in  the  spring  but  only 


TatikaOE. 


Meat5crap5  /To  Meat-Fee  p 


Fig.  4.  The  number  of  pounds  of  eggs  produced 
from  feed  consumed 


12 


• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

<D 

>> 

• 

-P 

• 

> 

O 

Pi 

rO 

u 

fH 

>>  g 

to 

ft 

-P 

o 

S 

<D 

ft 

cd  p 

pi 

<D 

o 

£3 

*1) 

ft 

a 

<3 

a ^ 

CO 

o 

Fig.  5.  Average  monthly  per  eent.  egg  prociuetion  from  pens  fed  tankage,  meat  seraps 
and  no  meat-feed 


13 


Table:  V. — Average  Per  Cent.  Egg  Production  per  Month,  per  Pullet — 

Two  Years 


Tankage 

Meat  scraps 

No  meat-feed 

Month 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  1 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  2 

Aver- 

age 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  1 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  2 

Aver- 

age 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  1 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  2 

Aver- 

age 

November— 28  days— 

13.5 

35.9 

24.7 

18.0 

39.9 

29.0 

14.0 

15.4 

14.7 

December  

27.0 

10.9 

19.0 

31.0 

15.9 

23.5 

18.8 

0.9 

9.9 

January  

41.7 

13.9 

27.8 

48.6 

18.4 

33.5 

24.5 

10.3 

17.4 

February  

40.0 

43.5 

41.8 

45.0 

31.7 

38.4 

27.5 

18.8 

23.2 

March  

56.5 

68.5 

67.0 

46.9 

70.8 

58.9 

51.0 

35.0 

43.0 

April  

69.0 

77.6 

73.3 

72.0 

80.2 

76.1 

38.5 

25.9 

32.2 

May  

73.0 

75.0 

74.0 

81.0 

77.8 

79.4 

26.0 

17.8 

21.9 

June 

77.0 

70.9 

74.0 

66.9 

70.8 

68.9 

22.9 

6.1 

14.5 

July  

73.9 

65.9 

69.9 

70.0 

66.6 

68.3 

10.0 

7.3 

8.7 

August  

56.8 

58.2 

57.5 

60.0 

46.6 

53.3 

2.9 

4.3 

3.6 

September  _ _ 

49.0 

42.2 

45.7 

53.0 

31.2 

42.1 

4.5 

2.5 

3.5 

October  

24.0 

20.7 

22.4 

24.0 

10.5 

17.3 

0.8 

0.9 

0.9 

November — 2 days  ___ 

1.5 

11.1 

6.3 

4.6 

12.1 

8.4 

0.0 

2.7 

1.4 

the  good  hen  will  lay  in  the  fall  and  winter.  With  each  ration  the  month 
of  November  in  Experiment  No.  2 was  better  than  in  Experiment  No.  1, 
due  probably  to  a little  more  mature  stock.  The  December  and  January 
productions  are  lower  in  Experiment  No.  2 than  in  Experiment  No.  1 
because  of  the  very  severe  winter  weather.  These  two  months  had  25 
days  with  the  temperature  below  zero ; a minimum  temperature  of  20 
degrees  below  and  a maximum  temperature  of  29  degrees  below  zero. 
The  drop  of  41  degrees  in  one  night  damaged  the  hens  considerably  and 
for  a time  practically  eliminated  egg  production.  Since  the  birds  were 
badly  frozen,  it  may  account  for  the  meat  scraps  pen  not  doing  as  well 
in  Experiment  No.  2 as  in  Experiment  No.  1.  The  October  production 
was  good,  indicating  heavy  production  and  assisting  in  making  possible 
a high  yearly  record.  Even  with  the  high  yearly  average  records  that 
these  birds  made,  it  is  well  to  note  that  the  spring  production  is  two  to 
three  times  as  great  as  the  fall  and  winter  production. 


Table  VI. — Average  Price  per  Dozen  in  Amounts,  per  Month,  of  Eggs 
Sold  from  the  Purdue  Farm 


Month 

Experiment  No.  1 

Experiment  No.  2 

November  _ . 

$0.45 

0.54 

$0.60 

0.63 

December 

January  _ _ 

0.48 

0.665 

February  _ 

0.43 

0.57 

March 

0.29 

0.34 

April 

0.32 

0.32 

Mav  _ _ _ 

0.34 

0.36 

June  _ __  _ 

0.30 

0.44 

July  _ _ _ 

0.33 

0.46 

August  _ _ 

0.44 

0.50 

September  

0.52 

0.54 

October 

0.60 

0.66 

H 


The  figures  in  Table  VI  show  the  average  monthly  net  prices  re- 
ceived for  eggs  by  the  Purdue  Poultry  Farm.  These  prices  are  used  in 
computing  the  values  of  the  eggs  produced  in  the  experiments.  For 
several  years  Purdue  has  been  shipping  to  eastern  markets  in  the  fall 
and  winter  'but  selling  to  Indiana  during  the  spring  and  summer.  During 
Experiment  No.  2 all  the  eggs  were  shipped  to  New  York  and  it  was 
found  that  it  was  both  possible  and  profitable.  In  making  these  price 
figures  the  total  price  received  for  any  shipment  of  eggs,  both  brown 
and  white,  was  taken  and  five  cents  per  dozen  deducted  for  the  case  and 
shipping  costs.  If  the  white  eggs  had  been  considered  separately  the 
price  would  have  figured  higher,  as  the  New  York  market  prefers  the 
white  egg. 

In  Experiment  No.  2 the  price  received  was  higher  than  in  Experi- 
ment No.  1 for  every  month  except  April,  when  there  was  a leveling  of 
prices  all  over  the  country.  December  is  usually  the  month  with  the 
highest  price,  but  in  Experiment  No.  2,  January  was  the  highest. 

If  the  egg  production  of  December  and  January  is  each  multiplied 
by  the  prices  of  eggs  and  compared  with  the  same  thing  in  April,  it  will 
constantly  be  noted  that  the  profitable  season  of  egg  production  is  in  the 
spring,  even  with  market  prices  at  low  ebb.  It  must  be  taken  for  granted 
that  the  fall  and  winter  production  herein  shown  is  not  lower  than  that 
generally  found  in  commercial  poultry  work.  By  averaging  the  two  years 
of  the  tankage  and  meat  scraps  pens  and  multiplying  the  prices  received 
in  both  Experiment  No.  1 and  Experiment  No.  2,  the  calculated  income 
per  hundred  hens  per  day  would  be  about  as  follows : 


Income  per  One  Hundred  Hens  per  Day 


Month 

Experiment  No.  1 

Experiment  No.  2 

November 

$1,003 

$1,338 

December 

0.95 

1.108 

January  _ _ 

1.224 

1.695 

February 

1.431 

1.898 

March 

1.519 

1.781 

April  _ __ 

1.99 

1.99 

May  _ _ 

2.17 

2.30 

June  _ 

1.78 

2.618 

Although  prices  per  dozen  of  eggs  are  high  in  the  winter  months, 
the  heavy  income  is  in  the  spring.  This  should  not  mean  that  winter 
eggs  are  not  to  be  desired,  for  every  dollar  of  income  at  that  time  helps 
to  make  the  other  months  profitable. 


Table  VII. — Average  Income  and  Profit  Over  Feed,  per  Pullet,  per  Year 


Experiment 

No, 

Tankage 

Meat  scraps 

No  meat-feed 

Average 

Average 

Average 

Average 

Average 

Average 

income 

profit 

income 

profit 

income 

profit 

1 

$5.77 

$4.09 

$6.08 

$4.28 

$2.25 

$0.88 

2 

6.29 

4.26 

5.84 

3.73 

1.535 

0.02 

Average 

$6.03 

$4.17 

$5.96 

$4.00 

$1.89 

$0.43 

i5 


The  figures  in  Table  VII  show  the  average  income  and  profit  over 
feed  per  bird  for  each  year.  Income  is  directly  correlated  with  the  num- 
ber of  eggs  produced  and  the  profit  is  likewise.  The  feed  bills  were 
higher  in  the  tankage  and  the  meat  scraps  pens,  due  largely  to  the  animal- 
feed  given  but  the  investment  was  profitable.  In  Experiment  No.  2 the 
no  meat-feed  pen  did  not  pay  its  feed  bill. 

The  term  profit  is  misused  and  in  this  case  is  not  meant  to  be  net 
profit,  but  the  difference  between  the  income  and  feed  cost.  Authorities 
differ  as  to  what  per  cent,  of  the  total  expense  is  made  up  of  feed  cost, 
but  a fair  estimate  is  that  it  constitutes  50  per  cent,  of  the  gross  cost. 
On  this  basis  the  tankage  pen  would  have  averaged  $2.33  net  profit  and 
the  meat  scraps  pen  $2.04  per  pullet.  Under  commercial  conditions  this 
may  be  considered  too  great  a profit  to  expect,  but  the  fact  remains  that 
it  is  profitable  to  feed  tankage  or  meat  scraps  in  a laying  ration. 


Table  VIII. — Summary  of  Averages 


Tankage 

Meat  scraps 

No  meat-feed 

Total  number  of  pounds  feed  consumed 
per  bird 

81.4 

82.08 

64.21 

Cost  of  feeding  per  bird 

$1.88 

$1.96 

$1.46 

Cost  of  producing  one  dozen  eggs 

0.13 

0.13 

0.33 

Pounds  feed  to  produce  one  pound  of  eggs 

3.6 

3.77 

9.32 

Eggs  per  pullet  ___ 

183.5 

179.1 

59.5 

Income  per  bird  __  _ 

$6.03 

$5.96 

$1.89 

Profit  over  feed 

4.17 

4.00 

0.43 

Table  VIII  collects  the  figures  given  in  the  preceding  tables  into  one 
group  for  easy  comparison  and  makes  the  contrast  between  pens  more 
marked.  When  given  animal  by-products  the  birds  consume  more  feed 
at  a greater  cost  but  they  lay  more  eggs,  bring  a greater  income  and  a 
greater  profit. 


Table  IX. — Feeding  Value  of  Protein  Feeds  per  Hundred  Pounds 


Experiment  No. 

Tankage 

Meat  scraps 

1 

2 

$54.70 

72.40 

$47.90 

57.25 

Average 

$63.55 

$52.57 

In  Table  IX  is  given  the  real  cash  unit  feeding  value  of  tankage  and 
meat  scraps.  Every  100  pounds  of  tankage  fed  produced  $63.55  worth 
of  eggs.  Every  100  pounds  meat  scraps  fed  produced  $52.57  worth  of 
eggs.  This  means  that  in  these  experiments  tankage  had  a feeding  value 
of  $1371.00  per  ton  and  meat  scraps  a feeding  value  of  $1051.40  per  ton. 
These  figures  seem  extremely  high  but  the  fact  remains  just  the  same. 
With  animal  by-products  at  a seemingly  high  price,  the  feeding  values 
are  still  great  enough  to  warrant  feeding  them. 

The  figures  in  Table  X answer  one  of  the  questions  concerning 
tankage.  The  fertility  of  eggs  ran  slightly  lower  each  year  and  the 
“hatchability”  considerably  lower  each  year  where  tankage  was  fed. 
Meat  scraps  did  not  injure  the  hatching  power  of  eggs,  which  seemed  to  be 


i6 


Table:  X. — Per  Cent.  Fertility  and  Hatching  Power  of  Eggs 


Experiment  No. 

Fertility  of  eggs 

Tankage 

Meat  scraps 

No  meat-feed 

1 

97.2 

99.0 

99.0 

2 

94.6 

97.7 

94.3 

Average 

95.9 

98.3 

96.6 

Experiment  No. 

Hatching  power  of  eggs 

Tankage 

Meat  scraps 

No  meat-feed 

1 

51.8 

74.2 

77.6 

2 

47.8 

65.5 

50.9 

Average 

52.8 

69.8 

64.2 

slightly  better  than  when  they  were  lacking  in  the  ration.  Too  much  em- 
phasis must  not  be  placed  on  these  figures,  except  to  rather  question  the 
value  of  tankage  during  the  hatching  season.  Why  this  should  be  is  not 
known. 


Table:  XI. — Average  Number  Pounds  of  Manure  Produced  at  Night 


Experiment  No. 

Tankage 

Meat  scraps 

No  meat-feed 

1 

22.38 

24.77 

25.02 

2 

26.08 

25.7 

26.7 

Average 

24.23 

24.74 

25.86 

In  Table  XI  is  shown  the  total  nightly  manure  production  per  bird. 
Each  week  the  droppings  were  collected  and  weighed  and  though  some 
evaporation  took  place  while  on  the  dropping  boards,  the  amount  is 
probably  as  much  as  would  ever  reach  the  field  or  garden  of  the  farmer. 
These  figures  substantiate  those  secured  with  Leghorns  in  years  previous 
and  if  the  night  droppings  constitute  two-fifths  of  all  manure  produced, 
ioo  birds  would  produce  practically  three  and  one-half  tons  of  very 
nitrogenous  fertilizer  each  year.  Valued  at  $5-°°  Per  t°n>  this  would  be 
quite  an  item  to  the  birds’  credit. 


Table:  XII. — Mortality  of  Birds  in  Pens 


Experiment  No. 

Tankage 

Meat  scraps 

No  meat-feed 

1 

4.0 

4.0 

6.0 

2 

10.0 

7.0 

6.0 

Average 

7.0 

5.5 

6.0 

Table  XII  gives  the  mortality  of  each  pen.  The  data  indicate  little 
and  since  the  two  years  are  so  much  at  variance  with  each  other  it  is 
doubtful  if  it  amounts  to  anything.  The  mortality  in  Experiment  No.  2 
seems  abnormally  high  but  the  records  do  not  indicate  that  the  ration 
had  anything  to  do  with  it.  In  Experiment  No.  i three  deaths  were  due 
to  roup,  two  were  from  reproductive  troubles,  two  were  caused  by  worms, 
one  death  was  from  heat,  one  from  leg  injury,  one  from  tumors,  one 
from  pneumonia,  etc.  In  Experiment  No.  2 eight  died  from  reproductive 
troubles,  six  from  unknown  causes,  three  from  roup,  four  crippled  and 
one  by  heat  while  on  nest. 


PART  II 


THE  FEEDING  VALUE  OF  COTTONSEED  MEAL  VS.  BUTTER- 
MILK IN  PURDUE  STANDARD  RATION  VS.  BUTTERMILK 
IN  A DOUBLE  GRAIN  RATION  FOR  PULLETS 

The  results  of  four  years’  work  in  feeding  skim-milk,  meat  scraps 
and  fish  scraps  were  published  in  Bulletin  No.  182.  At  the  end  of  that 
time  it  was  deemed  advisable  to  determine  the  value  of  cottonseed  meal 
for  chickens  as  it  was  so  easily  available  and  so  generally  used  on  Indiana 
stock  farms.  It  was  the  belief  of  many  that  Leghorns  would  do  well  on 
a ration  containing  more  grain  than  recommended  by  the  Poultry  Depart- 
ment, for  they  are  active  birds  and  should  utilize  efficiently  an  extra 
amount  of  heat-and-energy-forming  material.  All  evidence  available 
indicated  that  buttermilk  was  equally  as  valuable  as  skim-milk,  which  in 
turn  had  proved  at  Purdue  to  be  as  efficient  as  meat  scraps  or  fish  scraps. 

TIME 

Experiment  No.  1 — November  3,  1914  to  November  2,  1915 

Experiment  No.  2 — November  3,  1915  to  November  2,  1916 

MANAGEMENT 

The  housing,  yarding,  trap  nesting  and  record  keeping  methods  were 
the  same  with  these  experiments  as  for  the  tankage  experiment,  described 
in  Part  I of  this  bulletin.  While  the  pullets  were  not  pedigreed  they  were 
of  Purdue  stock,  divided  evenly  into  groups  of  30  birds  each  and  handled 
and  cared  for  as  in  the  tankage  experiment. 


RATIONS  AND  FEEDS 

The  rations  used  were  the  standard  Purdue  rations : 


Cottonseed  Mead  Pen 
Grain 

10  pounds  corn 
10  pounds  wheat 
5 pounds  oats 

Mash 

5 pounds  bran 
5 pounds  shorts 
5.3  pounds  cottonseed 
meal 


Double  Ration  Pen 
Grain 

20  pounds  corn 
20  pounds  wheat 
10  pounds  oats 

Mash 

5 pounds  bran 
5 pounds  shorts 
50  pounds  buttermilk 


Standard 
Grain  Ration  Pen 

Grain 

10  pounds  corn 
10  pounds  wheat 
5 pounds  oats 

Mash 

5 pounds  bran 
5 pounds  shorts 
50  pounds  buttermilk 


In  making  up  the  rations,  the  plan  was  to  use  the  standard  grain 
ration  as  a basis  and  to  supply  as  much  protein  in  the  cottonseed  meal  as 
in  the  buttermilk.  The  cottonseed  meal  was  purchased  from  a commer- 
cial concern  and  a sufficient  supply  obtained  to  last  for  two  years.  The 
buttermilk  was  purchased  from  the  Purdue  Creamery  and  was  fairly 
uniform  in  composition.  The  same  method  of  buying  feeds,  shifting 
proportions  of  grains  and  supplying  grit,  shell,  etc.,  was  used  as  in  other 
experiments.  The  buttermilk  was  fed  in  open  pans  and  not  mixed  with 
the  bran  and  shorts. 


i8 


PRICES  OF  FEEDS 

The  prices  of  feeds  herein  charged  were  the  same  as  paid  for  these 
feeds  and  are  given  in  the  following  statement : 


Minimum  and  Maximum  Prices  of  Feeds  per  One  Hundred  Pounds 


Feed 

Experiment  No.  1 

Experiment  No.  2 

Corn  _ _ 

$1.25— $1.44 

1.25-  2.16 

$1.25— $1.71 

1.60-  2.10 

Wheat  _ — 

Oats  _ 

0.94-  1.66 

0.94 

1.25-  1.50 

1.60 

Bran  _ _____  

1.50 

Shorts 

1.60-  1.70 

Oil  meal  __ 

1.80 

1.95 

Cottonseed  meal  _ __  _ 

1.60 

1.60 

Buttermilk  _ 

0.24 

0.24-  0.30 

Ground  bone  _ _ 

2.25-  3.50 

2.25 

Grit _ _ 

0.53 

0.53-  0.59 

Shell  _ _ __  _ 

0.53 

0.53-  0.59 

Table  I. — Average  Consumption  of  All  Feeds,  per  Bird,  in  Pounds 


Feed 

Cottonseed  meal 

Double  grain 

Standard  grain 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  1 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  2 

Aver- 

age 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  1 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  2 

Aver- 

age 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  1 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  2 

Aver- 

age 

Corn 

16.27 

21.18 

18.73 

27.12 

29.28 

28.20 

22.26 

25.24 

23.75 

Wheat 

9.49 

10.23 

9.86 

14.63 

14.34 

14.48 

12.24 

12.30 

12.27 

Oats 

6.44 

7.85 

7.05 

10.32 

10.90 

10.61 

8.63 

9.39 

9.01 

Total  grain 

32.20 

39.26 

35.73 

52.07 

54.52 

53.30 

43.13 

46.93 

45.03 

Bran  

6.44 

7.83 

7.05 

5.24 

5.45 

5.34 

8.49 

9.32 

8.90 

Shorts 

6.44 

7.83 

7.05 

5.24 

5.45 

5.34 

8.49 

9.32 

8.90 

Oil  meal 

0.17 

0.31 

0.24 

0.14 

0.20 

0.17 

0.18 

0.35 

0.26 

Total  mash  _ _ 

13.05 

15.97 

14.51 

10.62 

11.10 

10.86 

17.16 

18.99 

18.07 

Total  grain  and  mash 

45.25 

55.23 

50.24 

62.69 

65.62 

64.15 

60.29 

65.92 

63.10 

Cottonseed  meal 

6.83 

8.30 

7.56 

Buttermilk  _ _ 

52.40 

54.40 

53.40 

85.40 

93.90 

89.60 

Ground  bone  

0.29 

0.72 

0.50 

0.41 

0.42 

0.41 

0.38 

0.67 

0.52 

Grit  

0.63 

0.72 

0.67 

0.57 

0.42 

0.50 

0.79 

0.67 

0.73 

Oyster  shell 

1.34 

1.84 

1.59 

2.55 

2.83 

2.69 

3.15 

3.60 

3.37 

Total  feed 

58.34 

66.81 

62.67 

118.62 

123.69 

121.15 

150.01 

164.76 

157.32 

Table  I shows  the  feed  consumed  per  bird.  By  consulting  the  total 
grain  and  mash  figures,  the  best  comparison  can  be  made,  for  it  is  not 
fair  to  compare  the  weight  of  buttermilk  with  cottonseed  meal.  The 
birds  in  Experiment  No.  2 in  every  pen  ate  more  than  those  in  Experi- 
ment No.  1.  The  double  grain  pen,  even  with  more  of  the  palatable  grain, 
ate  practically  no  more  total  feed  than  the  standard  grain  pen  but  both 
pens  ate  more  than  the  cottonseed  meal  pen.  The  total  feed  consumed 


i9 

was  slightly  less  than  shown  in  the  tankage  experiments  but  the  egg 
production  was  also  less. 


Table  II. — Average  Number  of  Eggs  per  Pullet,  per  Pen,  per  Year 


Experiment  No. 

Cottonseed  meal 

Double  grain 

Standard  grain 

1 

46.6 

139.17 

159.49 

2 

64.78 

136.53 

174.25 

Average 

55.69 

137.85 

166.87 

Table  II  shows  the  chief  effect  of  feeding  the  three  rations, — the 
egg  production.  There  was  some  variation  between  one  experiment  and 
the  other  but  it  was  slight.  The  most  important  result  in  this  experiment 
was  that  on  the  standard  grain  ration,  the  pullets  laid  166.8  eggs;  on  the 
double  grain  ration  137.8  eggs,  and  on  cottonseed  meal  55.6  eggs.  This 
gives  hi  eggs  to  the  standard  grain  ration  as  an  advantage  over  the 
cottonseed  meal  and  29  eggs  to  the  same  ration  for  feeding  less  grain  and 
more  milk  and  mash.  While  Leghorns  apparently  can  utilize  more  grain 
than  is  usually  expected,  it  does  not  pay  to  offer  it  to  them ; an  extremely 
high  price  for  mash  and  a very  low  price  for  grain  would  be  the  only 
justification. 


Table  III. — Cost  of  Feed  per  Bird,  per  Year,  and  Cost  of  Producing 

One  Dozen  Eggs 


Experiment 

No. 

Cottonseed  meal 

Double  grain 

Standard  grain 

Cost 

Cost  one 

Cost 

Cost  one 

Cost 

Cost  one 

feed 

dozen  eggs 

feed 

dozen  eggs 

feed 

dozen  eggs 

1 

$0.79 

$0.22 

$1.06 

$0.10 

$1.12 

$0.09 

2 

0.93 

0.18 

1.09 

0.10 

1.21 

0.09 

Average 

$0.86 

$0.20 

$1.07 

$0.10 

$1.16 

$0.09 

Table  III  gives  the  costs  of  total  feed  required  for  each  dozen  eggs. 
The  cottonseed  meal  pen  ate  the  least  feed,  consequently  the  cost  was  the 
least.  The  standard  grain  pen  cost  about  nine  cents  more  than  the  double 
grain  pen  but  such  differences  are  not  very  indicative.  Each  year  com- 
pared favorably  with  the  other,  showing  the  average  to  be  worthy  of 
consideration.  The  eggs  were  produced  cheaply  in  two  pens  but  if  the 
no  meat-feed  pen  of  the  experiment,  mentioned  in  Part  I,  was  compared 
with  the  cottonseed  meal  pen,  little  difference  would  be  noted.  The  cotton- 
seed meal  was  of  little  value  and  the  birds  did  no  better  than  if  they  had 
not  received  it  at  all ; apparently  it  is  not  very  digestible  for  poultry. 
Although  the  cost  was  slightly  greater,  the  egg  production  being  larger, 
made  the  standard  grain  ration  slightly  more  efficient  than  the  double 
grain  ration  when  measured  in  cost  per  dozen  eggs.  Costs  of  nine  and 
10  cents  per  dozen  are  pre-war  prices  but  the  comparisons  can  still  be 
made. 


20 


Table  IV. — Average  Number  Pounds  of  Feed1  to  Produce  One  Pound 

of  Eggs 


Experiment  No. 

Cottonseed  meal 

Double  grain 

Standard  grain 

1 

9.98 

7.18 

7.94 

2 

8.12 

7.28 

7.60 

Average 

9.05 

7.23 

7.77 

1 Liquid  buttermilk  included,  calculated  as  one-tenth  dry  matter.  Grit  bone,  grit  and  oyster 
shell  not  included 


Table  IVa. — Number  Pounds  Dry  Feed  Required  to  Produce  One  Pound 

of  Eggs 


Experiment  No. 

Cottonseed  meal 

Double  grain 

Standard  grain 

1 

9.98 

4.02 

3.37 

2 

8.12 

4.02 

3.20 

Average 

9.05 

4.02 

3.28 

Tables  IV  and  IVa  show  that  a hen  is  a very  efficient  transformer  of 
grains  into  eggs.  The  actual  number  of  pounds  of  feed  consumed,  in- 
cluding liquid  milk,  in  Table  I shows  that  the  cottonseed  meal  was  not 
efficient.  Since  the  liquid  buttermilk  should  be  expressed  as  dry  feed 
to  be  counted  in  with  the  grains  and  compared  with  cottonseed  meal,  it 
was  estimated  that  buttermilk  was  nine-tenths  water.  With  milk  reduced 
to  a dry  basis  the  standard  grain  ration  produced  a pound  of  eggs  from 
every  3.28  pounds  of  feed,  somewhat  more  efficiently  than  did  the  double 
grain  ration.  It  was  necessary  to  furnish  one-third  as  much  of  the 
standard  grain  ration  to  produce  one  pound  of  eggs  as  it  was  the  cotton- 
seed meal  ration.  Cottonseed  meal  is  not  a good  poultry  feed. 


Table  V. — Average  Per  Cent.  Egg  Production,  per  Month,  per  Pullet- 

Two  Years 


Month 

Cottonseed  meal 

Double  grain 

Standard  grain 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  1 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  2 

Aver- 

age 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  1 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  2 

Aver- 

age 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  1 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  2 

Aver- 

age 

November— 28  days  __ 

8.9 

18.4 

13.65 

19.0 

26.0 

22.5 

18.0 

44.7 

31.3 

December 

0.2 

6.4 

3.3 

3.0 

9.4 

6.2 

10.0 

27.8 

18.9 

January  

6.2 

12.0 

9.1 

29.0 

22.0 

25.5 

20.0 

19.7 

19.8 

February 

25.0 

24.0 

24.5 

34.0 

39.9 

36  95 

44.0 

40.0 

42.0 

March  

23.0 

29.0 

26.0 

67.0 

62.5 

64.75 

70.0 

64.0 

67.0 

April  

34.0 

38.0 

36.0 

75.0 

70.0 

72.5 

7.7 

70.0 

73.5 

May  

17.0 

37.0 

27.0 

74.0 

69.9 

71.9 

71.0 

71.0 

71.0 

June 

16.0 

23.0 

19.5 

55.0 

53.0 

54.0 

65.0 

72.0 

68.5 

July  

6.5 

8.5 

7.5 

37.0 

43.0 

40.0 

53.0 

50.9 

51.9 

August  

8.0 

10.0 

9.0 

29.0 

24.0 

26.5 

39.0 

42.8 

40.9 

September 

2.0 

6.9 

4.45 

18.0 

22.0 

20.0 

43.0 

44.0 

43.5 

October  

2.0 

0.6 

1.3 

11.0 

8.0 

9.5 

16.0 

20.0 

18.0 

November— 2 days  ___ 

3.0 

2.8 

2.9 

0 

4.0 

2.0 

0 

4.6 

2.3 

80 

75 

70 

65 

60 

55 

50 

45 

40 

35 

50 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

v 

c 

2 

i 


21 


• 

• 

• 

• • 

0 

• 

-P 

• 

o 

Pi 

P 

u u 

>> 

H 

60 

ft 

-p 

CD 

a) 

0 

$ Pi 

p 

p 

P 

0 

0 

ft 

ft 

a < 

a 

c n 

0 

6.  Average  monthly  per  cent,  egg  production  from  pens  fed  cottonseed  meal,  double 
and  standard  grain  ration 


22 


In  Table  V is  given  the  monthly  measure  of  egg  production,  that  is 
the  per  cent,  production.  The  pullets  in  Experiment  No.  2 were  better 
birds  so  far  as  being  in  laying  condition  is  concerned  and  gave  a much 
better  winter  egg  production  than  those  in  Experiment  No.  1.  November 
was  a better  month  than  December  and  it  was  colder  during  Experiment 
No.  1 than  during  Experiment  No.  2. 

Cold  weather  with  humidity  is  harmful  to  Leghorns  and  they  respond 
quickly  to  any  sudden  lowering  in  temperature,  particularly  if  it  is  a 
heavy  drop.  The  double  grain  ration,  with  two  exceptions,  seemed  to 
average  a little  lower  than  the  standard  grain  ration  throughout  the  year 
and  dropped  back  a great  deal  in  hot  weather.  This  might  indicate  the 
propriety  of  keeping  up  the  mash  consumption  during  the  heat  of  summer 
and  possibly  even  increasing  it.  What  the  birds  picked  up  on  range  did 
not  make  up  for  the  shortage  of  animal-feed.  The  egg  production  of  the 
cottonseed  meal  pen  started  out  well  while  it  had  a reserve  of  the  feed 
the  birds  were  grown  upon,  but  in  about  two  weeks  they  dropped  down 
to  almost  nothing.  These  birds  did  their  best  laying  in  April,  the  same 
as  the  other  pens,  but  they  were  constantly  below  them.  Poultrymen 
always  want  winter  eggs  because  the  market  prices  are  high,  but  it  must 
be  remembered  that  the  price  is  controlled  by  the  supply  and  a heavy 
winter  egg  production  over  the  country  would  break  the  egg  market. 
Winter  eggs  are  the  exception,  not  the  rule,  and  a poultryman  who  ob- 
tains over  20  per  cent,  in  January  is  doing  remarkably  well. 


Table  VI. — Average  Price  in  Cents,  per  Month,  of  Eggs,  Sold  from  the 

Purdue  Farm 


Month 

Experiment  No.  1 

Experiment  No.  2 

November  __  __  

39.0 

48.0 

December  _ __ 

42.0 

48.0 

January  _ _ _ __  

45.0 

40.0 

February 

33.0 

32.0 

March  _ __  _ _ __  _ 

21.0 

24.0 

April  _ _____ 

20.0 

20.0 

May  

20.0 

20.0 

June  

20.0 

21.0 

July _ _ _ __  _ 

22.5 

23.0 

August  

24.0 

27.0 

September  

28.0 

38.0 

October 

37.0 

50.0 

In  Table  VI  are  shown  the  net  prices  received  for  eggs  after  the 
expenses  for  express  and  egg  cases  had  been  paid. 

The  marketing  methods  of  the  Purdue  Farm  were  not  as  good  during 
the  days  of  these  experiments  as  they  were  during  the  tankage  experi- 
ments, (Part  I)  but  in  the  winter  some  eggs  were  shipped  to  the  east. 
During  the  other  months  of  the  year  the  eggs  were  sold  in  Indiana.  Price 
is  a thing  that  must  be  sought  and  increased  when  possible,  as  a slight 


23 


improvement  may  turn  a loss  into  profit.  The  larger  the  quantity  avail- 
able to  sell  at  one  time,  the  better  the  chances  are  for  high  prices. 


Table  VII. — Average  Income  and  Profit  Over  Feed,  per  Pullet,  per  Year 


Experiment 

No. 

Cottonseed  meal 

Double  grain 

Standard  grain 

Average 

income 

Average 

profit 

Average 

income 

Average 

profit 

Average 

income 

Average 

profit 

1 

2 

$0.94 

1.42 

•^9 

O p 

0^.  h-1 

CO  Cn 

$2.76 

2.97 

$1.70 

1.88 

$3.17 

4.06 

$2.05 

2.85 

Average 

$1.18 

$0.32 

$2.86 

$1.79 

$3.61 

$2.45 

Table  VII  shows  the  income  and  profit  over  feed  from  each  pen. 
A discussion  of  these  terms  was  given  on  page  15.  The  cottonseed  meal 
pen  paid  for  its  feed,  with  very  little  balance.  Considering  other  cost 
items,  it  would  have  been  fed  at  a loss.  The  double  grain  and  standard 
grain  pens  were  kept  at  a profit  and  because  the  standard  grain  pen  laid 
the  largest  number  of  eggs  it  was  the  most  profitable. 


Table  VIII. — Summary  of  Averages 


Cottonseed 

meal 

Double 

grain 

Standard 

grain 

Total  number  pounds  feed  consumed  per  bird_ 
Cost  feed  per  bird  ______ 

62.67 

$0.86 

0.20 

121.151 

$1.07 

0.10 

157.32 

$1.16 

0.09 

Cost  producing  one  dozen  pggs 

Number  pounds  dry  feed  to  produce 

one  pound  eggs  _ _ _ __ 

9.05 

4.02 2 

3.282 

Egg’s  per  pullet 

55.69 

137.85 

166.87 

Income  per  bird  _ _ _ 

$1.18 

0.32 

$2.86 

1.79 

$3.61 

2.45 

Profit  over  feed  __  __ 

1 Includes  liquid  buttermilk 

2 Buttermilk  changed  to  solids  by  dividing  by  10 


Table  VIII  collects  the  average  figures  in  Tables  I to  VII  inclusive, 
into  the  one  table  for  easy  comparison.  The  standard  grain  pen  birds  were 
heavy  eaters  but  they  were  also  heavy  layers  and  brought  the  largest  in- 
come and  made  the  most  profit  over  feed.  Cottonseed  meal  is  worthless  as 
a poultry  feed  when  no  other  protein  feed  is  given  and  should  not  be  fed. 

In  Table  IX  is  given  the  fertility  and  hatching  power  of  the  eggs  in 
the  two  experiments.  In  Experiment  No.  i the  cottonseed  meal  had  the 
best  fertility  and  the  standard  grain  pen  the  poorest.  This  was  reversed 
in  Experiment  No.  2 and  the  average  does  not  show  that  cottonseed  meal 
was  harmful  to  the  fertility  of  eggs. 


Table  IX. — Per  Cent.  Fertility  and  Hatching  Power  of  Eggs 


Experiment  No. 

Fertility  of  eggs 

Cottonseed  meal 

Double  grain 

Standard  grain 

1 

97 

90.9 

89.9 

2 

89.6 

93.3 

96.2 

Average 

93.3 

92.1 

93.05 

Experiment  No. 

Hatching  power  of  eggs 

Cottonseed  meal 

Double  grain 

Standard  grain 

1 

70.5 

75.7 

83.6 

2 

65.9. 

75.4 

69.8 

Average 

68.2 

75.55 

76.7 

In  the  hatching  power  of  eggs,  the  cottonseed  meal  pen  was  con- 
sistently lower  than  the  other  pens  but  in  too  small  a percentage  to  war- 
rant any  definite  conclusion  being  drawn.  There  is  no  indication  that 
increasing  the  grain  in  a ration  will  help  or  harm  the  fertility  or  “hatch- 
ability”  of  eggs. 


Table  X. — Average  Number  Pounds  of  Manure  Produced  at  Night 


Experiment  No. 

Cottonseed  meal 

Double  grain 

Standard  grain 

1 

24.20 

23.22 

23.57 

2 

28.52 

24.86 

25.85 

Average 

26.36 

24.04 

24.71 

As  shown  in  Table  X,  the  nightly  manure  production  of  the  birds  in 
the  pens  was  rather  uniform  and  was  practically  the  same  as  that  pro- 
duced in  other  experiments. 


Table  XI. — Mortality  of  Birds  in  Pens 


Experiment  No. 

Cottonseed  meal 

Double  grain 

Standard  grain 

1 

5.0 

2.0 

7.0 

2 

2.0 

2.0 

4.0 

Average 

3.5 

2.0 

5.5 

In  Table  XI  is  given  the  mortality  of  each  pen.  Cottonseed  meal  is 
assured  by  its  enemies  to  be  not  only  detrimental  to  egg  production  and 
hatching  power,  but  to  the  health  of  the  birds  also.  In  Experiment  No.  i 
a mortality  of  five  birds  was  high,  but  in  the  standard  grain  pen  it  was  still 


25 


higher.  In  Experiment  No.  2 it  was  very  low.  The  average  does  not 
indicate  that  it  is  much  worse  than  what  might  be  found  among  heavy 
layers.  As  a rule,  the  heavy  layers  are  the  ones  that  show  the  repro- 
ductive and  similar  troubles,  which  accounts  for  some  of  the  high 
mortality  in  the  standard  grain  ration  pen. 

PART  III 

THE  VALUE  OF  CONFINEMENT  VS.  SMALL  YARD  VS.  FREE 
RANGE  FOR  LEGHORN  HENS  AND  PULLETS 

In  1913,  questions  arose  concerning  the  influence  of  the  amount  of 
range  given  the  fowls  upon  the  egg  production  and  hatching  results  ob- 
tained in  some  of  the  feeding  and  breeding  experiments  then  under  way. 
A general  opinion  prevailed  that  free  range  was  necessary  for  maximum 
success  but  as  to  just  how  valuable  this  was,  unfortunately,  information 
was  meager.  Hence  a two-year  test  with  white  Leghorn  hens  and  pullets 
was  planned  and  the  results  are  given  briefly  in  this  bulletin. 

DESCRIPTION  OF  EXPERIMENTS 

Work  was  commenced  in  November,  1913  with  three  flocks,  each 
of  30  Single  Comb  White  Leghorn  yearling  hens  and  repeated  the  fol- 
lowing year  with  three  flocks,  each  of  30  Single  Comb  White  Leghorn 
pullets.  Each  experiment  was  continued  for  12  months.  The  birds  were 
kept  in  houses  similar  to  those  described  under  the  tankage  and  other 
experiments  and  the  yards  were  planted  to  young  fruit  trees. 

Pen  No.  1 was  confined  to  house. 

Pen  No.  2 had  use  of  house  and  lot  10  feet  by  80  feet. 

Pen  No.  3 had  use  of  house  and  lot  130  feet  by  160  feet. 


Table;  L — Average  Consumption  of  All  Feeds  per  Bird  in  Pounds 


Feed 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  1 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  2 

Aver- 

age 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  1 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  2 

Aver- 

age 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  1 

Experi 
ment 
No.  2 

Aver- 

age 

Hens 

Pullets 

Hens 

Pullets 

Hens 

Pullets 

Corn 

14.84 

22.63 

18.74 

13.67 

22.84 

18.25 

12.72 

22.26 

17.49 

Wheat 

17.31 

12.91 

15.11 

13.53 

12.58 

13.05 

15.07 

12.24 

13.66 

Oats 

8.04 

8.88 

8.46 

7.81 

8.85 

8.33 

6.95 

8.63 

7.79 

Total  grain 

40.19 

44.42 

42.30 

39.01 

44.27 

41.64 

34.74 

43.13 

38.94 

Bran  

8.0 

8.87 

8.44 

7.77 

8.78 

8.28 

6.97 

8.49 

7.73 

Shorts 

8.0 

8.87 

8.44 

7.77 

8.78 

8.28 

6.97 

8.49 

7.73 

Oil  meal 

0.24 

0.27 

0.26 

0.34 

0.22 

0.28 

0.29 

0.18 

0.24 

Total  mash 

16.24 

18.00 

17.12 

15.88 

17.78 

16.83 

14.23 

17.16 

15.70 

Total  grain  and  mash 

56.43 

62.42 

59.43 

54.89 

62.05 

58.47 

48.97 

60.29 

54.63 

Skim-milk  __ 

79.8 

82.6 

76.7 

82.4 

68.7 

78.9 

Buttermilk 

85.4 

88.0 

89.0 

Oyster  shell 

2.92 

2.81 

2.86 

2.48 

2.69 

2.58 

2.23 

3.15 

2.69 

Grit  

1.47 

0.78 

1.12 

0.71 

0.62 

0.67 

0.74 

0.79 

0.76 

Total  feed 

140.61 

151.41 

146.01 

134.77 

153.35 

144.06 

120.68 

153.29 

136.98 

* Mn 


26 


The  ration  used  was  the  same  as  that  used  in  the  buttermilk  pen  of 
Part  II  of  this  bulletin,  except  that  skim-milk  was  used  during  the  first 
year  and  buttermilk  the  second  year.  The  ration  was  fed  as  described  in 
Parts  I and  II  of  this  bulletin. 

In  Table  I is  given  the  feed  consumed  per  bird  in  each  experiment. 
In  each  lot  the  pullets  ate  more  than  the  hens,  varying  from  4.54  to  11.32 
pounds  of  grain  and  mash.  The  more  range  allowed,  the  less  food  was 
given  by  hand,  but  the  difference  between  the  small  lot  and  confined  birds 
was  negligible. 

A small  lot  did  not  reduce  the  hand-given  feed  materially  but  on 
free  range,  even  though  granaries,  grain  stacks  and  manure  piles  were 
not  available,  the  birds  ate  at  least  five  pounds  less  per  bird.  This  is  a 
big  item  in  a large  flock  but  not  as  large  as  some  people  think.  The  pullet 
consumption  of  grain  and  mash  in  these  experiments  was  not  as  great  as 
given  in  the  other  experiments  discussed  in  this  bulletin,  and  as  the  egg 
production  was  satisfactory,  the  reason  is  unknown. 


Table:  II. — Average  Number  of  Eggs  per  Bird,  per  Year 


Experiment  No. 

Confined 

Small  yard 

Free  range 

1 (Hens) 

85.0 

93.0 

98.0 

2 (Pullets) 

139.6  . 

155.8 

159.5 

Average 

112.3 

124.4 

128.75 

The  figures  in  Table  II  show  the  egg  production.  As  might  be  ex- 
pected, the  pullets  laid  much  better  than  the  hens,  but  the  differences 
between  the  three  pens  were  not  very  marked. 

The  difference  between  the  small  yard  and  free  range  flocks  was 
much  less  than  between  the  small  yard  and  the  confined  flocks,  but  the 
small  yard  flock  did  much  better  than  was  expected  of  it.  The  averages 
of  the  pullets  were  good  in  all  cases  as  were  those  of  the  hens. 


80 

75 

70 

65 

60 

55 

50 

45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

• 

> 

o 

I 

and  * 


27 


••  7-  Average  monthly  per  cent,  egg  production  from  pens  confined,  in  small  yard9 
free  range 


Table  III. — Average  Per  Cent.  Egg  Production,  by  Months 


Month 

Confined 

Small  yard 

Pree  range 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  1 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  2 

Aver- 

age 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  1 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  2 

Aver- 

age 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  1 

Experi- 
ment 
No.  2 

Aver- 

age 

Hens 

Pullets 

Hens 

Pullets 

Hens 

Pullets 

November  (15  days)  — 

0.07 

15.0 

7.54 

1.7 

20.0 

10.85 

1.7 

18.0 

9.85 

December 

3.6 

14.0 

8.8 

0.6 

12.0 

6.3 

1.7 

10.0 

5.85 

January  

7.0 

2.3 

4.65 

4.6 

17.0 

10.8 

2.5 

20.0 

11.25 

February  „ 

21.0 

41.0 

31.0 

18.0 

40.0 

29.0 

14.0 

44.0 

29.0 

March 

41.0 

55.0 

48.0 

42.0 

68.0 

55.0 

36.0 

70.0 

53.0 

April  

57.0 

53.0 

55.0 

53.0 

75.0 

64.0 

48.0 

77.0 

62.5 

May 

63.0 

56.0 

59.5 

63.0 

71.0 

67.0 

62.0 

71.0 

66.5 

June 

39.0 

57.0 

48.0 

59.0 

60.0 

59.5 

52.0 

65.0 

58.5 

July  

17.0 

56.0 

36.5 

38.0 

65.0 

51.5 

49.0 

53.0 

51.0 

August  __ 

11.0 

46.0 

28.5 

17.0 

46.0 

31.5 

29.0 

39.0 

34.0 

September 

7.7 

31.0 

19.35 

3.4 

19.0 

11.2 

18.0 

43.0 

30.5 

October  — _ _ 

1.6 

10.0 

5.8 

1.8 

6.9 

4.35 

2.8 

16.0 

9.4 

November  (15  days)  — 

0.0 

1.4 

0.7 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

In  Table  III  is  shown  the  real  results  of  the  experiment, — the  monthly 
per  cent,  egg  production.  Hens  do  not  lay  in  winter  and  seldom  begin 
to  show  any  marked  production  before  the  middle  of  February.  No  one 
should  depend  on  hens  for  winter  eggs.  Pullets  lay  poorly  enough  but 
they  are  the  birds  for  winter  production. 

December,  1914  and  January,  1915  were  very  cold  months  with  the 
pullets,  the  temperature  for  15  days  being  below  zero,  so  no  good  winter 
egg  production  was  realized  for  that  time.  When  the  weather  is  such 
that  combs  freeze,  pullets  cannot  lay.  The  hens  did  slightly  better  in  the 
pens  not  on  free  range  in  February  and  March  and  equally  well  in  April 
and  May,  but  as  soon  as  the  weather  became  hot  the  birds  in  confinement 
dropped  off  in  production  a great  deal.  During  June,  July  and  August, 
egg  production  was  directly  proportionate  to  the  amount  of  outside  range 
available.  It  does  not  seem  to  be  the  food  available  outside  that  helps 
the  egg  production,  but  apparently  it  is  the  shade,  room  for  exercise  and 
mineral  elements  supplied  from  the  soil. 

The  data  from  fertility  and  hatching  tests  were  so  conflicting  that 
they  indicate  nothing.  In  the  case  of  the  hens,  the  greater  the  range  the 
poorer  the  hatch,  but  with  the  pullets  the  results  were  just  opposite. 

In  mortality,  the  loss  was  greater  with  the  confined  birds  than  with 
the  others,  due  to  the  excessive  heat  of  Indiana  summers. 

The  experiments  do  not  show  that  it  would  be  economical  to  supply 
hens  with  free  range  unless  the  land  could  be  cropped  and  its  efficiency 
increased.  It  is  suprising  how  well  hens  and  pullets  will  do  with  little 
room,  if  properly  cared  for.  In  recommending  the  amount  of  range 
necessary  for  fowls,  it  might  be  well  to  say  “give  all  the  room  that  can 
be  spared  but  small  areas  may  be  considered  adequate  if  cultivated 
freely.” 


■ 


IIIMIU'  I 


3 0112  054221392 


